You have no proof of that, only conjecture. Most companies find that detractors are the most vocal, not least. But it's easy to make claims without support.
You're asking for proof that not all people who are unhappy with Windows 10 posted about it on the internet?
Detractors may be more vocal than supporters, generally speaking, but you didn't attempt to compare the number of detractors online to the number of supporters online. You attempted to compare the number of detractors online to the number of users Microsoft claimed for Windows 10. Talk about claims without support... you are comparing apples to doctors and getting a result of "kitty" and claiming that proves your point.
How about the ability to decide for myself if and when (and which) updates will be downloaded and installed? That one is an absolute must-have; without it, all other discussion of relative merits is merely academic. That's where we are, though, since there's just no way I'll ever run 10 if it is anything close to what it is in November 2016, and there are several more can't-do-without features 10 lacks:
Windows 7 features a user interface that was designed strictly for the traditional non-touch mouse & keyboard PC. That's another one I refuse to live without. I don't have a touch device, and I have no plans to ever run Windows on a touch-enabled device. As such, I refuse to accept any of the UI compromises that have to be made to make touch interfaces work. Windows 10 has a disjointed, half-and-half user interface that can't decide if it wants to be a phone or a desktop PC. The lack of UWP and "apps" is a feature I could only live without if MS had done such a good job with the PC version of the UI that I didn't even notice I was running a "jack of all trades" OS. They didn't; I'm painfully aware of it every time I use 10.
How about the complete and total lack of ads? I can't even conceive that people would use an OS that contains ads. I don't care that I can turn them off (until MS turns them back on, and then I can turn them back off again, like an advertising game of whack-a-mole)... they should never be there, period.
How about the lack of telemetry? I've heard all the arguments about why it's okay, why MS needs the data, why I shouldn't care because it's all anonymized... and I have rejected them. If there is a "completely off" setting for enterprise, that means MS did not convince every organization out there that telemetry is fine and dandy-- and rather than trying to convince them it's fine, MS gave them the "off" they were asking for. I'll have what they're having, please.
Now, admittedly, MS is doing their best to bring a lot of the bad stuff in Windows 10 to 7, but so far I've been able to avoid it-- and I will keep avoiding it. Hopefully MS will not attempt to force Win 7 users to choose between going unpatched and having the bad stuff added to 7 along with the security stuff.
Again some people had hardware issues (those with webcams that didn't work, those with the Application data on separate drives than the OS, etc.) but hundreds of millions did not have issue
You don't know how many have the issue. You're guessing it's hundreds of millions, but that statistic is not in the article.
This is an untenable position as all OS's have issues when updating. The bigger the OS (Windows, iOS, Android) the more public the issues are. If the measurement of a "garbage" OS is issues during updates then all OS's are garbage including Windows 7.
That's pretty much the opposite of what I said. I said that Windows 10 would
still be garbage even if it had been fully debugged before release. That means my opinion that it is garbage is independent of the bugs introduced with nearly every new build. IOW, Windows 10 is garbage by design, but it's made worse because each new version is released without adequate testing, leaving the users to be the beta testers. The same is true of Windows 7 patches now, but fortunately, we're not supposed to be getting any new "features," so the opportunities to break things in general are reduced, and I can choose to delay or avoid the bad ones (even if it is part of a Windows 10-style "rollup") as long as I wish without having to intentionally break the updating system.
If MS was strictly adhering to its definition of extended support (meaning no new features, only security and bug fixes), that would be phenomenal-- most of what they consider "features" these days are nothing I'd want. Bug and security fixes are all I'm really interested in! Things like GWX adware and telemetry updates are neither security updates nor bug fixes-- they're "feature" updates, and as such, would not be part of 7 if MS had stuck to its own rules.
Hey, it could happen. Adobe seems to be doing well bullying their user base into a pay as you go model.
