That's where you are wrong. They both stem from the idea of overreaching preemptive policing which is based on presumption of guilt, and it's not an opinion - it's a definition of DRM. "Control" is too non-descriptive here. It's what kind of control it is that makes it unethical (i.e. one that violates privacy for the sake of total preemptive policing). And yes, DRM and its kin (like anti-circumvention) ends up violating freedoms, like freedom of speech for instance. So supporters of DRM are supporting same concepts as supporters of police state are, except may be in certain contexts (digital technologies).

I'm not really turning this into debate about why it's unethical (that's out of scope here), but it's about clarifying the underlying definition and understanding the nature of this.

I upgraded my Windows 8 travel laptop to 10 because I despised 8. At least to the extent that one can despise an operating system. So far I haven't seen anything to make me regret that move.

This computer will be staying on 7, though I don't imagine it has all that much more life in it, and I'm aware that when it gets replaced whatever I replace it with will probably have 10 as a default.

Nope and I can tell you why your wrong. As you said it's a definition of DRM. It's always the same flaw in the DRM debate. People have this notion that DRM has a true definition. It doesn't, there is no universal accepted definition of just what DRM is. It's the very reason it's highly debated. Sure all the different definitions might have some universal similarities, but that does not make it the true definition of what DRM is. DRM is a highly debated concept, nothing more. So what DRM is will always be an opinion, until it has a universally accepted meaning.

If the concept of just what is and isn't DRM was easy, these forums wouldn't be filled with debates... but regardless again the entire belief in whether something is ethical or unethical is an opinion. To the person living in a police state it entirely unethical because there living it, but to the people controlling the police state it's entirely ethical to them. The vast majority may condemn something as unethical sure, but that is a joined opinion shared by many people.

But somehow we have veered firmly off course here... you surly can't prove something is unethical, it's a personal feeling about whether something is morally right or wrong.

I've yet to see any evidence that Microsoft poses even the most remote threat to Steam or GOG. Contrarily, I think the company that Microsoft poses the biggest long term threat to is Microsoft. Time will tell.

I agree that Mac OS is decent, but I'm still more used to Windows and would pick that (as well as for other obvious reasons, such as software/hardware compatibility). As for Linux, I haven't tried it seriously for a few years (probably 5 or so), but last time I tried it felt like a really bad early days Vista, something that simply doesn't work for the advanced user. You either had to be a naive user with no requirements at all or someone who loves the command line with a passion and enjoys tracking down solutions to things that work out of the box on other OS's.

The way I see it, Windows' great advantage is that is works well with pretty much any hardware I want, and it mostly works out of the box.

I can tell you with a straight face that there's nothing terrible about Windows, and that no Windows 7 PC's that I know of are breaking down now, and neither are XP PC's for this matter, although naturally they're more at risk now that they don't get security updates.

Windows 10 is the biggest threat to mankind.

You're not a corporate drone are you? I mean... a while ago you pointed out how Exchange and Office are important for MS. Now you are back to saying you see Win's value only for gaming and can't understand why others that don't game might find it decent... also notice how you seem to think I am saying Win10 is "actually good" in some way. Decent can just as easily be equated with run of the mill / average / mediocre / "not complete shit"...

So do you want to continue to insist / imply Win10 is some horrible OS with zero redeeming qualities that no proper thinking person should touch with a pole? Because apart from my exaggerating for rhetoric, it seems that's what you are trying to do, and honestly, I don't think anyone is interested in such discussion - I know I'm not.

Let's talk a bit about you instead. You seem to have a lot of experience with people that have problems with Win, and it does not occur to you there are many more having no problems and using the OS smoothly - they have no reason to ask you for help, so you don't see them at all. All of these people are easy to prove exist just by looking at the market share of windows versus iOS and Linux - a point I keep dropping but you constantly avoid acknowledging. Has it ever even dropped below an absolute majority of 50%? I doubt it...

Now, the fact you are not acknowledging that, is NOT logically equivalent to agreement. But the fact folks keep using Windows IS logical proof they accept the OS in some capacity - otherwise they wouldn't use it. Is it acceptance because of lack of alternatives despite no coercion? Maybe yes, maybe no - certainly I think Linux is its own worst enemy and iOS is doing its own thing with its specific affluent and creative (and I'd also say more compliant) target audiences.

Basically, to go back to the market realities which are more on topic, it's incredibly dismissive of you to just wave MS strategy to dominate the OS market away as if it was valueless - the whole point is and was to dominate the market and then channel other products - and it's still working like a charm, despite missteps like Win8. Yes, MS created the OEM channel and leveraged it extremely well - in the process helping create the PC dominance versus other platforms, which contribution most of the PC master race seems to forget nowadays (they're young - what do they know of Atari, Amiga and the old Macintosh?). But if it was not for both the underlying value of the system and their support model that would not have been accepted and I'd say even embraced by the market. Heck in mainframes and servers it was not accepted and UNIX is still a very large share.

I mean, to me it seems you are looking at a huge behemoth - like say the british empire - and atributing its success to luck or stupidity of the competitors ALONE. I will never tell you MS is the best or the most worthy (despite my individual preferences), but I will also not pretend they have zero merit. And I will insist their current strategy of unified OS across platforms - from mobile to desktop - is likely to serve them well. Well enough to actually gain a lot of presence in mobile? Difficult, even with the success of the Surface lines. But well enough to somewhat reverse the trend of decline versus iOS and Google in traditional computing? I think so.

And to me this is evidence that Nadella is not just doing organizational fixing, but adjusting the product line and market priorities. Do you really think for example, that whoever was the leader of the Windows division in MS was a happy camper about having near zero revenue from sales of their newest OS? Yeah, right...

You're not a corporate drone are you? :)

I thought this thread was going to be about how Windows 10 can be changed by Microsoft in a way that Steam and GOG based games don't work anymore. I have seen a lot of speculation that Microsoft can now control what you do and install on your system to some extent is that true?

Nope. The EULA clause that is often cited concerns only Windows Store apps. MS doesn't care what desktop apps you install on your computer, and doesn't have a way to check those.

Thank you for clarifying that. I have a friend who keeps saying things which are a mix of conspiracy theory and fact and at times I can't distinguish how much of it is fabricated and how much is real. :)

Found this on Forbes, guess it`s relevant information:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2015/11/02/microsoft-confirms-unstoppable-windows-10-tracking/

Beside shmerl said I'll add:
Anything that takes away control from the rightful user/consumer is bad. This is not subjective, it's the objectivity itself. It's a principle. It's an axiom and that makes it true/fact also.
I don't care if you or others think that drm is not (that) bad. In this case you are the ones being subjective, by agreeing to give up your control to whatever other entity for whatever (selfish) purposes.
At least if your type had the decency to admit that they are in the wrong and selfish in this matter. But noooo, you want to have the cake and eat it too.

Gordon Kelly not only posts FUD about Windows 10 all the time, he even manages to misquote the article he links to. Whether you want to take his word about anything is on you, but I would take anything he says with a ton of salt.
And the link is for a personal blog, not for Forbes. Just an FYI.

Of course Window 10 have redeeming qualities.

But if you are using Windows dominance to support your arguments that folks accept window 10 to come capacity......
Window and Windows 10 is different and the market share for window 10 is small

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/02/windows_market_share_october_2015/

The logical inconsistency in your argument is equating window XP, Vista, 7, 8 as if they are all window 10.
Window 7 advantages outweighs the disadvantage for the majority of the users, hence so many people use it. But the users do not feel the same for Window 10

It's an older article (August 2015), but you may wish to read <i>Windows 10 can disable pirated games and unauthorised hardware</i> and do a little research and come to your own conclusion.

Simply taking the casual opinion of a GOG forum poster that Win 10 can or cannot or is limited to an app store (or not) isn't the best idea (if it's important to you).