I'm curious, genuinely, as to why all the "@#$!% Windows!" posts are being so happily upvoted, while the ones that are rationally pointing out the upside to MS's new direction are seemingly being ignored. You would think, with all the bitching that is normally done here concerning closed versus open, overly expensive software versus free or low-cost alternatives, that people might actually stop with the automatic MS-hate and consider their stance anew.
No software is EVER bug-free (own an Android phone? Enjoying all that perfection?); OSes are complex environments, and sometimes you just can not get every feature in place in a reasonable amount of time. At some point, you have to declare that you've reached a close of a phase of development. Despite our glee at the old "nah, that's a feature" joke, I don't think anyone honestly believes a company with as much money at stake as MS has really has a "screw it" attitude. They're a HUGE company, and for anyone who's ever worked in that sort of environment, you know that you actually have to marvel that any product at all EVER ships.
In part, it is because no OS is ever perfect (you Mac users take a look back, and you'll remember how bad the OS really was years ago, and admit that it too has its own unique problems even today despite being dramatically improved) that MS has moved to this model - fixes to issues can hopefully happen more quickly, new features added sooner.
Along with this new model of publishing Windows comes something else (relatively) new for MS - a new monetization method. For all the grousing about how old and lame the Redmond folks are, now that they are embracing the "freemium" model used by many mobile apps (ads for the free version, or pay to remove them) there's all the complaints for moving to the "new school" way of business. The second - and a little more understandable but I think still defensible in today's environment - complaint is privacy (mainly, the sale of your habits to merchants). First, while not easy for the newbie to do, 10 can be locked down fairly well (PC Mag has a decent article, and it's not the only one)
; second, if you use Facebook, Twitter, or other social platform, or any search engine, you began giving up privacy the moment your fingers touched a keyboard. If your activities are highly illegal (not just minor film/music torrenting) and you haven't been caught, you're already not worried about this issue; for the average person, yes we don't like the idea of targeted ads and trending our preferences, but to say that there's a person sitting around looking at that data and saying, "Aha! Bob Smith, I *knew* you were into midget clown rodeos!" - well, that's just silly. The only privacy I really, honestly care about is banking, taxes, and when I watch porn - my wife is cool with that last part, but I don't want my kids to type something in only to have YouPorn instead of YouTube pop up. Local browsing, then, is still hidden from other "common" users on my machine, and if I choose to do things like bank on line, I simply have to hope and trust that the certs on the HTTPS connection the bank provides haven't been compromised. That's going to be true for any platform I use to do these things.
I applaud MS for attempting to move in a new direction - it shows, finally, a willingness to change, even if there are missteps along the way. They will have issues with Windows, just as all other OSes do. They will piss people off from time to time. But to complain because they don't do something, then complain because they do? That's not proper criticism, it's just bias.