...Would they still be Microsoft then?
Heh. Well, if you're suggesting that they'll not change, even in the longer term, then you could be right, I suppose. They did change more recently though - I mean, take the case of Windows 8. There was not an awful lot wrong with Windows 7, as far as I could see, so what the heck was Windows 8? A mistake, presumably. So, Windows 10 to the rescue. If they keep screwing the Win10 updates up though, they could well be risking losing their monopoly. Google chrome is eroding that market already. The MS corporate licensing must be a complete mess, and all this instability presents a potential business risk and isn't conducive to smooth workplace processes, most of which will tend to depend on IT nowadays, to a relatively large extent.
In How to upgrade to the version of Win10 Pro that YOU want
, Woody discusses the issues here. Ends up saying that:
"Windows 8.1 remains the most stable version of Windows."
If that's actually the case (I wouldn't know), then MS would presumably have known it, so one has to wonder, why not leave well enough alone - why all this incessant unseemly haste to get users back onto the update treadmill with Beta-quality updates in Win10? I suppose it's probably all about money, but it's become a serious time bandit and an unproductive resource hog for an awful lot of the planet. From experience, the usual cause of big problems like this (poor quality) can often be traced back to simple mistake/incompetence and especially where the relevant software development processes and test staging processes are below
CMM Level 3 (because such processes are poorly-defined and poorly-understood by the people who are obliged to participate in them). Ultimately, that's a management-created problem (Deming).
It certainly seems to be in an awfull mess, in any event. Woody makes a valid point in the post: Ever consider dropping back to the LTSB/LTSC version of Win10?
, where he links to the Computerworld post: FAQ: Windows 10 LTSB explained
if I was advising corporate IT, I'd recommend that serious consideration be given to Woody's suggestion. For corporates, it would ultimately be all about cost containment and risk mitigation in a situation where the risks are daily becoming more evident.
That's why I wrote:
"...I have taken full control over the update process and won't let it get beyond Version 1607 (OS Build 14393.2214) - or at least, not until the update path ahead is clear and becomes less risky."