You're very good at hiding your hatred for MS. Biased opinion anyone?

You don't need to trust their press release, you can go look at it for yourself. Data collected from browsers alone point to their number being correct. Fact is, they do dominate the desktop OS world according to those numbers. If it's a workstation it has a 85% chance of being Windows and 42% chance of being Windows 10.

Nobody is forcing anybody to use anything. Instead, the current technology landscape makes it that for many types of businesses, Windows is the logical choice. The appearance of Android mitigates this issue but doesn't wash it away.

From a user's perspective, an OS is like a car. If it has a steering wheel, four wheels and brings you where you need to be then mission accomplished.

If you are a decision maker in the tech industry and you do not understand Microsoft's place in the industry then you have either been blinded by hatred or aren't as informed as you think you are.

Actually what we really need is a president that will try to remain impartial to the party and try to find a fine balance between socialism and capitalism. A good president would know how to surround himself with a strong set of skilled people coming from different backgrounds with a variety opinions that line up with the larger portion of the population. The idea of party over country is getting old and its not helping the little guy. I compare it to when a player on a hockey team intentionally hurts another player on the other team and his team goes on to defend him regardless of how wrong the player was. It's this same sheep mentality that the choke point of many issues in the United States.

The AC told you how it is and what he wrote is on the mark.

As for MS packaging tools within their OS, it's about providing a complete solution. MS is packaging an Anti-Virus to protect it's users and the image of its OS. Anti-virus isn't optional software in today's ecosystem, it's a necessity for most users.

Based on your reasoning, MS should NEVER have included Notepad, Calc, any image viewing tools, no file explorer, no zip support, no browser, no built-in drivers, no... the list goes on. Any other product you purchase suffers the same challenge yet you don't complain about those.

If you want a modular OS then go to Linux where you get to install a barebone version and then add what you want, but for the masses that isn't viable so MS, google and Apple do what they have to do.

It's part of their strategy. They are trying to head towards a "one framework for all devices". They've already someone accomplished this. From the DEV side it's almost seamless.

Different needs and tech. If Windows was as "closed" as OS X it wouldn't have these issues. It comes with the territory. MS has gone a long way in it's ability to tackle security.

Exactly. At some point the requirements out-scale the intent of the laptop. The majority of users do not require the specifications he requested. Some of his specifications are already handled in the more expensive work books and some of his requirements are a matter of setting up software to do what he wants.

Sounds like you need a desktop.

This is for Thin laptops which I'm personally ok with. And even if it was for all laptops, if there's a true demand for modular laptops to remain, someone can put out a product and hope to cash out on it. If they can't then that just means we are a minority and won't get our way.

Get used to it. It's all heading that way and it will make more and more sense as they continue to move in that direction.

RAM slots are only needed if the device doesn't ship with enough in the first place. Better to solve the problem at the source and simply include more RAM. It's less expensive to manufacture the hardware without the removable RAM and it shrinks the footprint.

I guarantee that isn't true. Credit cards are a great example. Many get defrauded yet many continue to use it.

Let me ask you this. Who's data security do you think will be better?
A) Company who needs a credential validation for users to authenticate to access what they sell (services or goods)
B) Company who's business is to be the best at user authentication, specializes in fraud detection and fraud counter measures

Considering that a majority of users use the same credentials for most of their accounts it's safe to say if there's a data breach they are screwed regardless of them being. With one tech does it all it's no only simper for the user but it's simpler to implement and have the ability to provide better all around security. The major challenges at the moment is that each service uses a different security mechanism and it's so overwhelming to users that they just ignore the issues. Its also more difficult for developers to implement credential validation and results in poor implementation which results in poor security.

Users will be more willing to deal with slightly more complicated authentication if the process is the same across the spectrum of accounts needed to be accessed. If the users don't understand the importance of protecting their data, both scenarios are doomed so for that reason better have the simpler system which has a chance of avoiding breaches and a better chance of being fully embraced by users.

I meant majority of people reuse the same username and password.

The advantages of centralizing credential validation far outweighs the disadvantages you mentioned:
1. Most people already use the same username and password for most of their accounts
2. Currently these 3rd parties are getting their databases hacked hence, accounts are hacked. With centralized account management we can apply very strong security to minimize such instances.
3. With only one service to cater to, devices can run anti logging software (such as what some banks have you install to avoid account theft via key logging)

Off course having your account stolen is going to be a huge problem but it already is for most as mentioned in #1.

My take on this is that in general, republican voters don't care as much about politics and for that reason are less informed, not less intelligent. I've met my share of trump supporters and there's on thing they all had in common: They weren't aware of half of what is going on in the news (when it comes to politics) and they aren't willing to take what they hear against Trump at face value regardless of the sources.

Having said that, other than the blind follower, you need to find a common ground with a Trump supporter before you can't discuss politics. Once you do, you need to understand what they think about it without criticize their opinion. You can then get into a reasonable conversation because you didn't demonize them.

How about you smack the crap out of the people who watch and support shows like Honey Booboo, The Kardashians or any other crappy show of the sort. My point is that you are now part of a minority looking for respectful content that provides a service to the world or at least entertains without diminishing our youths understand of the real world.