And some of the "most visible" Microsoft employees still use the term RTM: That's why I think we can continue to use that term without problems.
RTM means an updated version without insider restrictions, e.g. uncontrolled telemetry, nag screens etc.
The terminology is completely irrelevant. Call it stable release build or whatever. Point is having a version with no watermark, no time bomb, not demanding feedback every 2 minutes etc. RTM is just a term people use, because that's what we've called such a version since forever.
I do not think the OP said any of that annoyed them, but rather was outlining what most people would define as the latest current stable release (for argument's sake, RTM). I'd happily install Microsoft's canary builds if they made them available, knowing fully well that they more than likely would not work, but that does not mean I would not look forward to the next stable release. At the moment, the current stable release is Red Stone 2 and I see nothing wrong in waiting for Red Stone 3, while also happily testing all the alphas and betas in between.
Sure, but I still think that two major releases a year is too much, too fast. Strongest point is: They currently fail to deliver most of the features they annonce in time. Once a year would be more sufficient and less stressful to maintainance (IMO).
I suspect (guess) it may have to do with future marketing. -- Assuming someday in the future, Windows as a "service", actually becomes a paid subscription service (as many suspects since Microsoft is not likely to flip the bill indefinitely for free), it would make sense to keep a rolling release to encourage people to keep their paid subscription current. Microsoft figures most people would be comfortable being at least 1 - 2 version behind, as has been the history of nearly all Windows releases. With that in mind, releasing a new "version" every 6 months guarantees that after the first six months to a year, you would indeed be 1 -2 versions behind. I agree with you that releasing 1 new edition once every year while releasing regular updates for that edition would make more sense, but not necessarily if your goal was to market it as a subscription (knowing the consumer history surrounding adaptation of your product and wishing to maintain a continuous cash flow).
It could have been Windows Defender and the reason could be that you had the unfortunate luck of having the "infected" version on your computer. Some chat on this was talked about here on MDL https://forums.mydigitallife.net/th...rsions-v5-33-6162-injected-compromised.75147/ However Avast, which now owns CCleaner has reported it affects both the 32 and 64 bit (originally it was wrongfully assumed to only impact the 32-bit version, but now more is known, and it does impact both 32-bit and 64-bit). Further, the original "fix" of upgrading to a new version has proven to be ineffective at resolving the mess and now it is strongly recommended that you format your computer and start over.