To be honest, I don't know why the author thinks users will love this P2P "feature". All he worries about is the --very real-- potential risk of hackers getting new toys to play with. However, I think he missed a very significant point, one that affects clients directly.
With this P2P updating idea, Microsoft can put the burden of the downloads away from its own servers (where it should be located) and re-locate it on the machines of its customers.
This means that the customer's PC will become slower as it will serve the updates to another client. And who pays for the upload? If my machine is uploading, it is using the internet connection that I pay for. In other words, I am not only letting Microsoft use my machine to relieve the burden on its servers, but also letting this abusive company use my internet connection for free.
"Yes, Microsoft, come use my resources with no benefit for me and, while you're at it, please charge me a yearly (maybe monthly) subscription to use my own computer! I will love that!"
What kind of a deal is that? Why should Windows users be happy about it?
The only thing I am happy about is that I DO NOT USE WINDOWS, so that this abusive company cannot reap me off so shamelessly!
That's one feature to love for sure! I think they should have the "update from the Internet" feature set as default and hide the other options, too. That would be the cherry on the cake! :P Also, I'm sure that "journalist" will be happy serving thousands of update requests from his computer!!
ResponderEliminar