the more they can get you under their thumb the better they like it.
I don't believe that is their intent - but it is one of the results of their actions.
The problem has roots going way way back. Back in the day, one of Windows' greatest assets was its "
flexibility". Users were able greatly customize Windows, modify the desktop, change the default settings, and "tweak" other features in all sorts of ways. And that was great. Users loved that.
But at the same time, one of Windows' greatest drawbacks was its "
flexibility". Way too often, users tweaked Windows
to death. But who got blamed? Microsoft was blamed for allowing Windows to get broken by apps, modifications and tweaks NEVER intended (anticipated, tried or tested) by Microsoft.
About this same time was all the big security fiasco with XP. Microsoft wanted to put AV code in XP but Norton, McAfee, CA, TrendMicro and the others whined and cried to Congress and the EU that Microsoft was trying to create a "monopoly" and rule the world (they were, but that's another issue). Norton, McAfee and the others cried that it was their job to rid the world of viruses (and we see how well that went). But all Congress and the EU heard was the word "monopoly" and so ordered MS to take the AV code out of XP, or risk being
broken up Ma Bell style. In the EU, they even ordered MS to create a version of Windows sans IE.
Well, of course, Norton, McAfee and the others had (and have) no true incentive to rid the world of malware as that would put them out of business. So what happened? The bad guys took over, proliferated and thrived - thanks in part to affordable broadband to the home along with virtually zero user-training in "
practicing safe computing".
But once again, who got blamed?
The users for failing to install AV or keeping their systems current? Nope.
The users for being "click-happy" on every unsolicited link, download, attachment, or popup they saw? Nope.
Norton, McAfee and others for failing to do what they claimed was their job? Nope.
The bad guys??? Nope! Not even the perpetrators of the crimes got blamed!
Microsoft, once again, got blamed for the actions of others. And blamed relentlessly for 10+ years by everyone spurred on by the MS bashers and haters, especially by those clearly biased IT "journalist"
in the IT press - or rather wannabe journalists who don't know what
ethics in journalism means.
So fast forward to W10/W11 and this day and what do we have? The most secure, most robust version of Windows yet. Why? Because Microsoft today would much rather get blamed for being inflexible (resulting in that most secure, more robust Windows) than getting blamed again and again and again for Windows breaking or poor security.
And I don't blame Microsoft. I don't necessarily like this inflexibility, but I see their reasoning and don't blame them for it. So, at least in the context of this inflexibility, it is not about Microsoft wanting to have us under their thumb, it is about ensuring "we" don't break Windows or worse, infect Windows by modifying and tweaking it to death.
BTW, did you notice how Congress, the EU, Norton, McAfee and those wannabe journalists have kept mum about MS putting anti-malware code in W10/W11? Ever wonder why? I say it because they know they blew it.
I am NOT suggesting had MS been allowed to keep the AV code in XP we would have not security issues today. But I am saying the bad guys would not have been able to get such a secure and HUGE foothold, cause near as much damage, nor have such a free rein for as long as they did.
Remember, Microsoft (as opposed to Norton, McAfee and the others who actually depend on the existence of malware for their very survival) did and does have incentive to rid the world of malware - it is so they will stopped getting blamed for its existence.
Now, I used to work 2015 feet underground and that did not bother me a bit. But cleaning the leaves out of my gutters scares me to death so I'm getting off this horse now.
