W10M and the anti OS brigade

[N_LaRUE]

Continuum being the only benefit is entirely subjective. As others have pointed out, Android is not a very secure OS for the most part, and if you use iOS you are in Apple's walled garden which means it's much more difficult to put your own media on a device and you are forced to use Apple's proprietry standards for your accessories.

I also think it's far too early to say that UWP is a failure. W10M only launched officially 6 months ago. How much traction in the market did iOS or Android have and how many apps were in their stores after 6 months?

You should go back and read things again.

Android is secure, older, not updated devices are the issue. So be clear on that. Similar to people using Windows Xp still.

Also the combining of Android and Chrome is still new and has 'similar' ideas as Continuum. Taking it one step further, Google also has apps available on Windows via Chrome browser. Just like MS has apps on Android.

I do however agree with the rest you have stated. Though I'm still not convinced about UWP at the moment.

 

[Cruachan 11]

You should go back and read things again.

Android is secure, older, not updated devices are the issue. So be clear on that. Similar to people using Windows Xp still.

Updates are not the only security issue with Android and it is incredibly naive to suggest otherwise, as is the case with any operating sytem whether mobile or not. Examples include the ease of sideloading unsigned apps and the allowance of in-app advertising.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[N_LaRUE]

Updates are not the only security issue with Android and it is incredibly naive to suggest otherwise, as is the case with any operating sytem whether mobile or not. Examples include the ease of sideloading unsigned apps and the allowance of in-app advertising.

Is that clear enough for you?

So in other words because someone can side load apps an OS is insecure? So that means that Windows on PC is the most insecure OS in the world because you can download and install anything on it.

When we talk about security of an OS it's typically about how easily it's hacked by others. In this instance the latest Android OS is secure and updates are very very important to security and vulnerability of the OS. To suggest otherwise is to be highly naive.

You cannot prevent user stupidity however hard you try, as an industrial engineer I try to reduce this in principle in my designs but it's impossible to eliminate. Same goes for software or hardware.

Talk to any IT security person and they'll tell you the biggest threat to IT security is users.

For those who like a bit of paranoia to go with their security worries should check this site out - Norse

 

[a5cent]

So in other words because someone can side load apps an OS is insecure? So that means that Windows on PC is the most insecure OS in the world because you can download and install anything on it.

Exactly, that's one of the main things that makes an OS insecure, or more precisely:

• the ability to easily tamper with software while there being no sign that such software has been tampered with
• the fact that OSes like Windows or Linux know nothing of the concept of an app (it's just a bunch of files the installer barfs onto your system which can include anything and be written anywhere.
• etc

The ability to install anything is just the final step that breaks the security camel's back, due to all the other security flaws (or complete lack of security concepts in those areas) that exist along side it.

And yes, Windows is the least secure OS for precisely this reason (not because it's most often targeted). This is in fact exactly the reason the modern Windows run time environment exists in the first place. It exists primarily because it was impossible for MS to change Win32 into a more secure system (which is better at protecting users from themselves) without severely compromising compatibility, which is why we got the "tacked on" WinRT rather than an evolved and more secure Win32!

You cannot prevent user stupidity however hard you try, as an industrial engineer I try to reduce this in principle in my designs but it's impossible to eliminate. Same goes for software or hardware.

Windows was originally designed for technically minded people. Anybody who used such a system was a professional and knew one or two things about the tech they were using. That's completely different today.

It's true that an OS can't foresee and deal with every form of user stupidity. Users will always have to carry some of that responsibility for the reasons you mentioned. However, a modern consumer OS must strive to make it as easy as possible to be used securely and as difficult as possible to be used insecurely. Neither Windows or Linux Desktops fit that description. Those systems are better suited to being used in any which way a user desires, which may or may not be secure. Those systems make users responsible for a lot more than is technically necessary, and very few consumers are competent enough to make secure choices.

That is very much in contrast to iOS or the modern Windows run-time environment. Android is somewhere in between.

When we talk about security of an OS it's typically about how easily it's hacked by others.

I completely disagree with this. It's probably only true in non-technical consumer oriented discussions, likely because such exploits are scarier and far more spectacular, but they account for less than 1% of all successful security breaches. In professional circles the main topics discussed are exactly the opposite. A Windows admin spends a big part of their education studying how to lock down a Windows client with the goal of making it less maintenance intensive and more secure, almost all of which is focused on preventing users from doing things they shouldn't!

When it comes to resisting remote hacks, almost all OSes are rather secure these days (with OSX occasionally offering an exception).

The larger and far more important aspect of security, because that is what is exploited 99% of the time, is how easy it is for users to screw up (out of stupidity, ignorance, or whatever reason). In that regard the various consumer OSes are very different.

We agree on most things here, but I don't think it's correct to suggest that side loading (not by itself, but along all the other security failures that factor in to that scenario) isn't part of the security puzzle. Those things can't be ignored. Any judgement of OS security must encompass all aspects of security, including those that stem from user stupidity, many of which are easily avoidable given a more cleverly designed OS. Apple's iOS and MS' modern Windows run-time have attempted to do exactly that. It's in fact a large part of Apple's success and their no-hassle, no-fuss, it-just-works image.

 

[falconrap]

I work for one of the largest corporations in the world. We will begin migration to Windows 10 in a couple of months. One of the biggest reasons holding a number of companies back had been some key applications that most companies have to use for security and/or compliance. A couple of real big ones finally out out Windows 10 compatible versions in the past couple of months, so now we're in final stages of testing.

Windows 10 has a number of big advantages for companies that aren't short sighted. The ability to package corporate apps on a company store, and providing access to only those apps the company wants you to have access to via a curated list is one of the big ones. They can prevent you from installing most apps while allowing approved store apps to be installed as needed. It also allows easier to maintain corporate images. In the next 6 months you can expect to see quite a few big names migrate over.

Yes, there will always be those IT departments lead by people who lack vision. But don't underestimate the advantages Windows 10 has and how many people have the vision to take advantage of it.

 

[N_LaRUE]

I work for one of the largest corporations in the world. We will begin migration to Windows 10 in a couple of months. One of the biggest reasons holding a number of companies back had been some key applications that most companies have to use for security and/or compliance. A couple of real big ones finally out out Windows 10 compatible versions in the past couple of months, so now we're in final stages of testing.

Windows 10 has a number of big advantages for companies that aren't short sighted. The ability to package corporate apps on a company store, and providing access to only those apps the company wants you to have access to via a curated list is one of the big ones. They can prevent you from installing most apps while allowing approved store apps to be installed as needed. It also allows easier to maintain corporate images. In the next 6 months you can expect to see quite a few big names migrate over.

Yes, there will always be those IT departments lead by people who lack vision. But don't underestimate the advantages Windows 10 has and how many people have the vision to take advantage of it.

I think for a lot of companies it will be the cost of upgrading since a lot of them just recently upgraded to Windows 7. Trying to convince upper management that they should move to Windows 10 won't be easy.

When I say cost, I mean the overall cost, not the OS. When you have thousands of people using PCs it's a lot of money and time.

I pointed out I'm using pretty old software as it is, then on top of that old PCs as well. Then there's the issue of specialist software that we use and compatibility. Lots of testing would be involved.

 

[N_LaRUE]

Exactly, that's one of the main things that makes an OS insecure, or more precisely:

• the ability to easily tamper with software while there being no sign that such software has been tampered with
• the fact that OSes like Windows or Linux know nothing of the concept of an app (it's just a bunch of files the installer barfs onto your system which can include anything and be written anywhere.
• etc

The ability to install anything is just the final step that breaks the security camel's back, due to all the other security flaws (or complete lack of security concepts in those areas) that exist along side it.

And yes, Windows is the least secure OS for precisely this reason (not because it's most often targeted). This is in fact exactly the reason the modern Windows run time environment exists in the first place. It exists primarily because it was impossible for MS to change Win32 into a more secure system (which is better at protecting users from themselves) without severely compromising compatibility, which is why we got the "tacked on" WinRT rather than an evolved and more secure Win32!



Windows was originally designed for technically minded people. Anybody who used such a system was a professional and knew one or two things about the tech they were using. That's completely different today.

It's true that an OS can't foresee and deal with every form of user stupidity. Users will always have to carry some of that responsibility for the reasons you mentioned. However, a modern consumer OS must strive to make it as easy as possible to be used securely and as difficult as possible to be used insecurely. Neither Windows or Linux fit that description. Those systems are better suited to being used in any which way a user desires, which may or not be secure. Those systems make users responsible for a lot more than is technically necessary, and very few consumers are competent enough to make secure choices.

That is very much in contrast to iOS or the modern Windows run-time environment. Android is somewhere in between.



I completely disagree with this. It's probably only true in non-technical consumer oriented discussions, likely because such exploits are scarier and far more spectacular, but they account for less than 1% of all successful security breaches. In professional circles the main topics discussed are exactly the opposite. A Windows admin spends a big part of their education studying how to lock down a Windows client with the goal of making it less maintenance intensive and more secure, almost all of which is focused on preventing users from doing things they shouldn't!

When it comes to resisting remote hacks, almost all OSes are rather secure these days (with OSX occasionally offering an exception).

The larger and far more important aspect of security, because that is what is exploited 99% of the time, is how easy it is for users to screw up (out of stupidity, ignorance, or whatever reason). In that regard the various consumer OSes are very different.

We agree on most things here, but I don't think it's correct to suggest that side loading (not by itself, but along all the other security failures that factor in to that scenario) isn't part of the security puzzle. Those things can't be ignored. Any judgement of OS security must encompass all aspects of security, including those that stem from user stupidity, many of which are easily avoidable given a more cleverly designed OS. Apple's iOS and MS modern Windows run-time have attempted to do exactly that. It's in fact a large part of Apple's success and their no-hassle, no-fuss, it-just-works image.

I won't disagree with anything you say. Not only because you're right, but also because I didn't think things through myself.

Ah to have simpler IT issues...

 

[cracgor]

I have been perusing the boards, and indeed the comments thread, and there still seems to be a persistent 'hatred' / 'dislike' of whatever MS is offering.

My opinion is that the perceived "hatred" of W10M is in fact disappointment in something people love. This is then coupled with differing opinions with the bloggers on this site. While I will give it to the writers for being passionate and thorough in their thought processes, I still often disagree with the talking points articles. When I read phrases like "retrenchment" , "UWP", "continuum", "WaaS", or "leverage enterprise"; I feel like it is the same story year after year. It is not persistent hatred to think that:

1) Retrenchment means backing away from the market and saying that declining sales and interest is intentional.
2) Continuum is a neat gimmick that is not quite useful enough to be of real use at the moment.
3) UWP is not likely to work because developers have been tricked 3 times with OS reboots and the number of useful W10 devices are not there. 300 million desktops running W10 will not convince a developer to write an app for the mobile environment.
4) WaaS is more of an excuse to say that incomplete software is being released for the consumer to beta test and pay a monthly subscription.
5) Enterprise in mobile has been ceded to Apple a long time ago. Windows does have leverage with computing, but right now the two are separate.​

I have been reading these articles since WP7 and was a believer in everything I read all the way up to W10M, but nothing ever happened. Just more of the same. So while you are entitled to your opinions that everything will turn around this time for W10M and it will be around forever; I disagree. I would love to have a W10M device, but until the OS is stable, the hardware is compelling, and the app situation is fixed, I will be on the sidelines.

I could be wrong. Everything could turn around. Part of the purpose of an internet forum is to provide debate. Just because you are on WindowsCentral, does not mean you have to agree with everything Microsoft does.

 

[FirstWatt]

[...]
2) Continuum is a neat gimmick that is not quite useful enough to be of real use at the moment.
[..]

Everything which became successful was "not quite useful at the moment", at some point in the past.

Apart that, I disagree completely. I have a great opportunity exactly now, for continuum...
Our IT blocked everything "Web Mail", that is GMail, Outlook.com, whatever, and they block all Cloud File Services. OK, I can have a look at the incoming private Mails on my mobile. But answering them, especially if it's a longer mail, or if I have to copy content from other programs into it, is a PITA.
So, Continuum comes to the rescue. Plug the adaptor cable in the monitor of my PC at work, get the BT Keyboard in the drawer, and work with my private mail, surf the sites our IT is blocking (no they not only block what you think ), and so forth.

Uh, I forgot: I'm not working in a Bank. They have, at least in Switzerland, shut down everything already. Almost no internet, no USB Stick, no nothing.

Continuum is great already.

 

[Felipeicd]

I think that the problem with w10m was the 950 and that not all wp8.1 phones could be updated, when w10m was released with the 950 the os was full of bugs and the phone didn't feel like a flagship phone. It has take some time the the phone and os work fine, now I think it work great. I do like what windows it's trying to do now, creating a universal core, so I have a surface a xbox one and a 950xl, but still, you can see why people don't trust what microsoft want to do, there has been years of pour marketing and general problem in the windows mobile world and the eternal "soon" from microsoft.

Enviado desde mTalk

 

[Felipeicd]

Can W10M recover?

With all the OS problems, the terrible press, the lack of advertisement and lack of developers, you think that w10m could recover from all that? I'm really hoping that w10m could be a success, but it's kinda looking dark lately.

 

[finalrelief]

Re: Can W10M recover?

I believe they're creating the windows 10 mobile OS and making it better and better for a re-branding (not refresh/reboot of the OS like 7-8-10). Next April will probably mark the launch of the Surface Phone and I believe "Lumia" will die then but W10M will live on. We'll have to see how enterprise reacts to the HP Elite x3 because it will be a precursor to the Surface Phone.

I've chatted numerous times with Microsoft Sales Reps and they can't acknowledge that the Surface Phone is in development but they all have either scripted or non-scripted - multi-paragraph long responses about how cool a surface phone would be.

So a short answer is yes I believe it will become a success later on.

 

[Ray Robertson]

@Cracgor EXACTLY!!!!!!! Tech years amount to more than dog years and what iOS and Android were able to do in 6 years vs what Windows Phone has been able to do is yin and yang. After 5 plus years of Windows Phone things should be going forward and not backward. The progress that we'd thought we'd see simply isn't happening and yes nothing is perfect but it's pretty clear when dedicated users are fleeing the already small market share is nose diving. No one is telling folks to leave, but we are telling them to stop lying to themselves. Waiting to see what the Alcatel Idol delivers and if things seem more promising and if not I'll be like you waiting on the sidelines and trying something else.

 

[docsp1]

The WM10 mobile is a secure OS with a modern User interface.
The App Situation for the average User is not so bad as often told.
For the Specialist it has become worse over time with Publishers running away and not updating to the new OSVersions.

Microsoft has now finished the Inclusion of the mobile Part of Windows into one universal OS.

So lets hope the App Developers see the Chances and come back as their earning often was better under Windows than with the other OS where the User Baser to Competition ratio has been unfavorable.

 

[Spectrum90]

Continuum being the only benefit is entirely subjective. As others have pointed out, Android is not a very secure OS for the most part, and if you use iOS you are in Apple's walled garden which means it's much more difficult to put your own media on a device and you are forced to use Apple's proprietry standards for your accessories.

I also think it's far too early to say that UWP is a failure. W10M only launched officially 6 months ago. How much traction in the market did iOS or Android have and how many apps were in their stores after 6 months?

Some devs are reporting that 75% of their UWP downloads come from phones, even thought there are less than 10 million phones running W10 and more than 300 million W10 PCs.
Nadella said many times that the huge PC user base would drive the adoption of UWP. The strategy is definitely not working as expected.


Android apps in Chromebooks run isolated in containers. On the other hand, Microsoft relaxed the security in UWP to support desktop apps in the store. Centennial apps run full trust with the same privileges than the user.

 

[Felipeicd]

Re: Can W10M recover?

We'll have to see how enterprise reacts to the HP Elite x3 because it will be a precursor to the Surface Phone.

I think that the hp elite x3 could be the best thing that happened to w10m so far, if Microsoft won't do marketing at least hp will do it to sell their phone, and can create some hype to the w10m, at least in the business area. Probably ms it's waiting to see how the elite x3 will do in the market before doing a surface phone.


Enviado desde mTalk

 

[RumoredNow]

Re: Can W10M recover?

Probably ms it's waiting to see how the elite x3 will do in the market before doing a surface phone.

My impression is that Microsoft is waiting for Redstone 2 to add in OS features on a stable base (Redstone or Anniversary update) and it is the added features that will help differentiate a phone sized Surface product while highlighting the new direction.

A lesson learned from 950/XL most likely.

 

[BBurke33609]

In all honesty, the builds for redstone recently have been amazing on my icon short of that battery drain issue which they fixed. This last one even now feels like the battery life has gotten a little better than what I remember on WP8.1. I am really happy with my phone right now.

 

[mmo2]

Personally, I would rather wait for a better product than settle for an inferior product sooner. Sometimes it pays to be patient. I tried to keep up with the feedback on the latest builds before using Insider. (once it had been released to the public, of course) I didn't want the "testing" versions on my phone. Was I anxious for Windows 10? Yes! Enough to risk screwing up my phone? No. Was it worth the wait? In my opinion, yes. Is it perfect? No, but show me an OS that is....

 

[EspHack]

its not that simple, I don't completely like the way they do things at ms now, but I understand the why, still, it is inconvenient in some ways and it leads to this constant anger, so there's no helping it

btw I don't get this kind of thread, complaining about complaints, then somewhere else asking for negative feedback to improve things, the new insider leader claims she is a fan of negative feedback, OP says that most complains are just annoying people with no background to back it up, maybe I'm wrong but I doubt you can read this forum in its entirety to be completely sure they are ALWAYS shouting things for the sake of it, after a while you just keep complaining with some hope

maybe its dumb to say this but I think a forum is mostly a shared knowledge troubleshooting guide, people come here to discuss PROBLEMS and get help, when the amount of problems reaches a certain level, this is what you get