I like the OS but the changeover to quarterly major upgrades has been a disaster due to consistently poor testing and QA. The Windows Insider program was supposed to help this by placing prototypes in the hands of a population more diverse than that of the test labs but it did not appear to turn this one up. If I were Microsoft I'd be thinking about changing the entire paradigm of taking major portions of their user population through trauma four times a year - yes, the old system of monthly patching was cumbersome but it didn't require gigabyte-sized downloads and so many changes all at once that they're impossible to isolate, and if a bad one turned up - it happens - it could be rolled back individually.
I was on a tightly metered connection for about a year and four times a year I would have to decide which of my (then) four computers I could allow to talk to the Internet at all, lest they be hijacked by the mandatory update process and my monthly allowance used up in a single download. Allowing the user to say No to this (it's in networks/metered connections) only means that the user will be running without a possibly vital security update. This system simply isn't flexible enough and it ought to be redesigned from the ground up. IMHO.
>
...If I were Microsoft I'd be thinking about changing the entire paradigm of taking major portions of their user population through trauma four times a year - yes, the old system of monthly patching was cumbersome but it didn't require gigabyte-sized downloads and so many changes all at once that they're impossible to isolate, and if a bad one turned up - it happens - it could be rolled back individually. ... My theory on that is that something in the Windows 10 architecture doesn't allow the partial/incremental updates that we (*cough*) enjoyed with earlier versions of the OS.
I would not be surprised if they did something in how Win10 works, such that they HAVE to release these huge "replacements" instead of "patches". But that's speculation on my part.