Post-Nadella Microsoft is trying to project an image of being customer focused. Well, what I'm seeing are a lot of customers who say that they don't want Windows 10's feature updates, or that they want them less frequently.

It just so happens that the version of Windows these customers are asking for already exists, as an actively-supported product. But you can't buy it. I can't describe this behavior as anything but anti-customer.

> Well, what I'm seeing are an awful lot of customers saying they don't want MS's Windows 10 feature updates, or they want them less frequently.

This is similarity bias affecting your judgment.

I believe the way windows 10 currently runs update is wrong for me, and for most tech users, by far. I'm glad it takes 10 second to fix it to allow delayed updates again, but still I would like it to come out of the box easier to manage.

On the other hand, for the very very vast majority of windows users, this is superior to the end result they experienced before (updates never installed, and not by choice).

What's wrong here is a clear case of "one size fits all", they apply the same system they made for the majority to everyone, and it end up not work for some users for a variety of reason, but it's (imho) wrong of you to think this is not exactly what most users want: "do it like my phone/tablet, I don't care about updates"

Just to be clear, I'm not saying a majority of customers dislike MS's feature updates, just that there are a lot who do.

The amount of people asking for something like LTSC is large enough that Microsoft really, really ought to make that version more widely available. IMO, Microsoft's refusal to do so says a lot about their values as a company.

I would imagine that the vast majority either don't like it or are indifferent to it because it's just something Windows does.

> What I'm seeing are an awful lot of customers saying they don't want MS's Windows 10, but would prefer to go back to Windows 7.

FTFY. I'm not talking about the improvements underneath the hood, but just the way things looked and acted under Windows 7.

What do you prefer about Windows 7 compared to [(Windows 10) - (Feature Updates) - (UWP + Windows Store)]?

There's a "stable" software option available for organizations for Windows 10 Home.

I switched over to the "Semi-Annual Channel" in Windows Updates advanced options. The "Semi-Annual Channel" is for "widespread use in organizations" versus the "Semi-Annual Channel (Targeted)" which is "ready for most people."

Also, the updates can be deferred for up to 365 days, but I'm not sure if that would slow the updates down rather than just delay them.

Since you need either an enterprise agreement, or you need to pirate it, I'm not sure this is realistic for most people.

Pirating Windows is not realistic for most people? From my experience, paying for Windows is what is not realistic for most people.

The vast majority of Windows is the home version that comes preinstalled on your $400 laptop

I concede. Personally, most of the PCs I see are custom desktop computers, hence my comment.

As the other person above, this is similarity bias affecting your judgement. Which is fine, it happens, but it puts you in the wrong once you let it cloud your opinion on what happens (quote) "for most people". Most people have a legal windows 7/8/8.1/10 key that came with their computer and let them run win10.

A license for Windows 10 costs 100 bucks on Newegg. Who are these people building custom desktop computers who cannot afford $100? Custom PCs tend to be the domain of people building expensive gaming machines.

Disclosure: Microsoft employee