Windows 10 advertises Microsoft products, and 3rd party products, and is the first step into being suckered into Microsoft's foray into a paid subscription OS.
Sounds like a great metaphor. Let us "upgrade" you to make more money from you.
A better one would be to say that it's like your bank upgrading your card from signature to chip + pin and issuing a new card number as a result. It's a frustration to change all your automated billing, but they do it because it's more secure and costs them less in fraud protection.
What Microsoft calls "more secure" is the fact that Windows Store apps, which are a micro-tiny-minority of apps a typical user will run on a Windows desktop, work in a similar fashion than iOS apps, with a very limited access to the system, and therefore much reduced risk of malware. But I do not believe a typical user will be more protected with Windows 10 than Windows 7. Except more code means potentially more attack surface.
That technology is being hailed as "more secure" because it requires you to insert, and type your secret PIN, correct?
1. In many cases, you can still use it online, just as before, without insertion+PIN.
2. Most stores will still allow you to swipe it, just as before. Some retailers aren't even allowing insertion yet, even though the hardware is there.
3. Even IF everyone required you to insert and type your PIN, you are actually less secure because the little bit you "consented to" when "upgrading" to chip + pin says that card issuers are less liable for fraudulent charges and other problems. http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/understanding-EM...
And it's still not a perfect analogy, because chip+pin isn't going to force me to subscribe to a monthly or yearly fee to use my bank card in the future, like Windows 10 assuredly will. It also doesn't implement additional technology for my bank to spy on me and my activity.
So - who's really safer?
The problem is that product changes are being rolled in with/disguised as security updates. That should be wrong, and while I'm normally on the side of less mandates - this misleading behavior should be addressed by lawmakers.
