Still don't see why people pitch a fit about having a Microsoft account when they don't about having a Google or Apple account for their phones, Amazon or Roku or innumerable accounts for their TV and entertainment, an account to buy things online, an account to use a restaurant app...
Or even an account to post in these forums.
So the original statement can be easily seen.
It's not a deceptive question because Windows is just following in the footsteps of everything else
It is a deceptive question because the comparison isn't "everything else",
the question is Windows OS vs Windows OS.
You can't see why people pitch a fit about having a Microsoft account because you aren't starting from the same place they are starting from, purposefully avoiding the reasons altogether for why its so upsetting.
- Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0/2.1/3.11 didn't require a Microsoft account, only local.
- Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000 didn't require a Microsoft account, only local.
- Windows XP/VISTA/7/8/8.1/10 didn't require a Microsoft account, only local.
Even the initial Windows 11 didn't require a Microsoft account, only local - it was only later in the middle of Windows 11 that Microsoft made it
virtually impossible (As
noted by Tom's Hardware) to use a local-only scenario.
And trust me, I really would have preferred to have typed out that line all 14 times for each individual OS instead of just condensing it down to 3, because I'm not convinced you'll listen. But I suspect the moderators might have gotten annoyed with such a thing.
If you actually wanted to use the metric that others are using, you would've begun doing so already. So in the end you've only deceived yourself by clearing the table of what upsets people, then looking at the table with nothing on it and getting yourself confused.
Put the facts back on the table and you'll understand. The facts are these: Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0/2.1/3.11/95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/VISTA/7/8/8.1/10. And yes, even the beginning of Windows 11's life.