Star letter
Of the many arguments for and against Windows 10, and there have been many good ones in PC Pro, the one that concerns me most is the gradual erosion of software and hardware that hospitals use.
A Windows 7 computer runs the programs and peripherals in use without needing to upgrade until sufficient analysis of the upgrade has taken place. However, Windows 10 forces its updates on users, which on some occasions have, in my case, rendered graphics cards unusable (one of them in a desktop only a year old). To cap this, some computers “suddenly” changed over from Windows 7 to Windows 10 after clicking the X to close the nagging “Do you want to upgrade?” message.
Microsoft’s answer to this debacle was a knowing wink and a half-hearted apology with an “oopsie, did we really do that?”. Nonetheless, all seemed okay and the computers were left on Windows 10 until, with the next update, some were rendered unusable resulting in costly intervention.
The web is seemingly awash with questions regarding failed updates, while the option to run in compatibility mode only slightly extends the life of peripherals. I can’t help but think that Microsoft may have shot itself in the foot with the buying public, although it’s unlikely to lose the corporate market as it is too deeply entrenched due to the lack of credible alternatives. However, problems are on the horizon.
There are indicators that public distrust is growing, starting with Microsoft’s early attempts at covert data gathering (another “oopsie, didn’t we mention that?”) and resulting in people switching off Cortana. Edge failed to make any impact. Why hand any more data than necessary to a company that abuses you?
Hospitals rely very heavily on software that runs seamlessly and reliably across platforms, but each new update brings the possibility of a crash or, worse, data loss with consequent massive impact on patient safety. There are many safeguards in place to prevent such a nightmare but as we become increasingly reliant on a system that renders older equipment obsolete without consultation, can we say that all will be well for the future?
Editor-in-chief Tim Danton replies: Thanks for this Gordon, and you may find Jon Honeyball’s column
( see p110) interesting reading this month. I’d also point you to our review of Microsoft’s all-new Edge browser ( see p50). As to the bigger question you raise, I’d counter with another: what other choice do we have?