I wish Microsoft reverted to its 1990s style of making tools for power users that don’t get in the way. Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me. Security issues aside, it was a solid OS. It also had a non-flashy interface that got out of my way. No annoying notifications, no distractions: just pure Windows. Windows 2000 respected the user.
Today’s versions of Windows seem less respectful of the user. Microsoft is treating Windows as a platform to advertise Microsoft’s products rather than as strictly a productivity tool. Even if a lot of users these days use computers more like entertainment and communication devices rather than productivity tools, software should still get out of the user’s way. Software should shut up and do what the user commands.
Unfortunately there are other software systems that have the same philosophy. Google constantly nags me regarding logging in and switching to Chrome. Even macOS has gotten a lot more nag screens in the past decade compared to the glory years of Jobs-era Mac OS X.
It’s amazing how so many organizations are dependent on Windows, macOS, and Google for their productivity, yet these platforms have become more annoying to use over the years, becoming impediments to productivity.
Exactly the same here (and I've said so many times over the past 20 or so years). Sure, the W2K UI could be tarted up a little bit but no major functional changes. With security and hardware updates I'd be completely happy.
Microsoft's behavior forced me into migrating to Linux (and in that I'm not alone).
They've got the talent (and almost 10x the headcount), it's the organizational architecture and perverse incentives that would (and do) prevent them from building it.
It wasn't a lack of talent that caused a team to decide to put "Microsoft Rewards" ads that look like phishing scams on start menus and in notifications. Instead, some PM got a bonus or promotion for making and increasing usage of this awful product, degrading the user experience and siphoning off a tiny amount of money. A different organization would have had the ability to realize that's a terrible "feature" to add to the OS.
I think that "current team" refers to the entire team, not just the software devs. It includes the PMs, marketing people, etc. as well. I think that rayiner is correct, Microsoft isn't capable of making something as good as win2k or win7 anymore.
I still use Windows 2k machines for Photoshop and other old Adobe tools that didn't have much in the way of DRM. It's an operating system that respects the user, it doesn't act as a babysitter.
And I still have a W2K machine that I use for offline tasks, some are software related (compatibility), others support older hardware that's still functional (back then, forced/planned obsolescence wasn't quite as bigger deal). I've my ancient HP LJ-III printer connected to the PC via its parallel port.
I don't think that's the right reason. They very much care about the opposite, that is, realizing their strategy of migrating from "buy-once-use-forever" to the subscription model. That's the reason they force everybody to use online user accounts and so on.
LTSC is a direct threat to this model so it's practically impossible to use at home/small business legally.
> Today’s versions of Windows seem less respectful of the user.
This is a massive understatement. These days Microsoft is openly and aggressively hostile to the user and its getting worse every update. This is yet another of the curses of monopoly, the monopolists will eventually hold those under its sway with utter contempt. They are going to do things their way, and you are going to take it.
> These days Microsoft is openly and aggressively hostile to the user and its getting worse every update.
In my opinion, the moment at which Microsoft started being actively hostile to the user was when they added WGA in the Windows XP era. Its existence meant that the owner of the computer would no longer be considered a trusted party; that piece of code was actively working against the computer owner. That led Microsoft to gradually adopt a mindset in which the owner of the computer is no longer supposed to be in control of the computer. That mindset got even stronger with the addition of DRM (which treats computer owners as if they were actively malicious), and with malware protection measures like Secure Boot and Kernel Patch Protection (which treat only code explicitly authorized by Microsoft as reliable).
The way I see it related to this are the questions who was/is paying MS for windows or who are their customers (at various points in time). At the time counterfeiting was meant to be the main concern, someone was paying for it and the money didn't flow through to MS. Between the cost of windows being hidden away for someone buying a OEM machine or wrapped up in a contract for businesses there probably wasn't many that deliberately chose or were aware of that particular software component in what they were buying. The rise of mobiles and ad networks meant no one thought about paying for the OS software, consumers would never pay for firmware on any other electronics and that assumption followed on so the costs were absorbed by whoever designed the platform, manufacturer or carrier. It pays to be the middleman though, through various app stores.
There's also the move from making an application for an OS (for many GUI tools mostly explored what they need to provide, are 'done' and stable by now) towards clients for an online service, cross platform frameworks or websites where you could argue the browser is the OS shell. I'd guess if there's any strategic failing for MS with windows, it's that they haven't given developers much reason to make apps _for windows_ with things that can't be done elsewhere, even for gaming the constraint is loosening, and a lot of that is driven by AMD/nvidia/intel or following what is getting made for consoles.
In a truly competitive market with many equal(-ish) players, then the software with things people hate most, like adtech, would lose out to those that ones that provide what people want the most, like speed/stability/usability.
Do you think so? The problem with adtech is that it subsidizes the products by trading a margin of annoyance for extra revenue, allowing lower consumer prices. I would argue that the current market already does have many evenly matched players, and they naturally gravitate toward an equilibrium where they have as many revenue-bearing annoying features as the market will bear. As an example of a correction I recall the old days of popover and popunder windows that were worse than today's run of the mill site.
This is why it's hard to find an affordable dumb modern TV. They do exist, but they are pricy and made in small volumes. The market has spoken loud and clear.
> Even macOS has gotten a lot more nag screens in the past decade compared to the glory years of Jobs-era Mac OS X.
I bought a new iPad the other day. I've got notifications in System Preferences advertising five different services I don't want, plus more notifications in individual apps (like an advertisement for the Apple TV subscription in the TV app, which is not the same thing as the subscription service). I don't want Apple TV, Apple-filtered News, whatever the Apple exercise thing is, or the Apple Cultural Experience: just the hardware and software I bought.
Perhaps you and GP aren't really the target market for their products. Part of why, after many years of Slackware and Arch Linux on desktops I assembled myself, compiling kernel modules, etc etc, I decided to pay Apple for the past decade is exactly because I don't want to make these decisions.
Frankly I pay Apple for the following things, in order or descending importance to me:
2) MagSafe cable so I don't trip on cords and/or damage my machines;
3) The subjective feeling that their corporate interests are more aligned with mine than other players in the market, viz. privacy etc.;
4) Pixel density;
5) Well-built aluminum bodies;
6) Large trackpads;
To be fair, I'm not saying the prompting for things I don't want (e.g. I don't consume any media services or exercise stuff) isn't annoying, but it seems to only happen once I switch devices every few years. It's been useful for me to discover services I wouldn't know about otherwise, which I now am a customer of, such as iCloud.
You make a great point - I am still a Mac user because their ecosystem is thoughtful and cohesive and their computers have lasted forever.
I guess I just wish they weren’t so… pushy. As a consumer, I get nudged by all kinds of companies every day, so I get a little… overstimulated (?) by it all, and sometimes just want to use it the way that I want to use the device.
I’m also the guy that has turned off notifications for almost every phone app, because it feels invasive of my brain space… I want to decide when I will use an app and when I won’t.
> It’s amazing how so many organizations are dependent on Windows, macOS, and Google for their productivity, yet these platforms have become more annoying to use over the years, becoming impediments to productivity.
"Extinguish" is out; "Enshittify" is in. (Maybe the other Es have also changed.)
TL;DR American companies are legally obligated to put the interests of shareholders before customers and employees. (Off-topic) This should explain why layoffs are so acceptable, even in the face of record profits.
There’s a reason why their stock price is through the roof. Companies in the US have their first and foremost duty towards Shareholders, and only shareholders. This is not an opinion, I am speaking legally.[1] And what the shareholders want is for the company to squeeze out every dollar it possibly can from its products.
Please read the "Significance" section of the Wikipedia article you linked. It shows that your claim that this is a legal requirement isn't as clear-cut as you make it to be.
"...this is a legal requirement isn't as clear-cut as you make it to be."
The legal legal requirement can be questioned but heaven help the modern CEO that doesn't abide by the shareholders-first ethos. Before the 1980s (before Thatcher, Reagan, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek et al era) companies had an understanding that they had a responsibility to both shareholders and the community that they operated in.
From reading your source, it doesn't really sound like a legal requirement, since the "business judgment rule" kind of supersedes it.
I think it's more that the people boards put in charge of businesses know which side of their bread is buttered on and naturally will try to make board members/shareholders happy or they'll be out of a job.
Customers/employees are treated as just means to that end.
Hi, as former member of a board of directors, and also as a current shareholder in a company, you are wrong. The fiduciary duties owed to the company arise from the legal relationship between the directors and the company directed and controlled by them. The fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders do not arise from that legal relationship.
Try again when you actually graduate law school. Maybe then you can speak legally about something I do PROFESSIONALLY.
You're not saying anything, though you may think you are. Fiduciary duties owed to the company arising from the legal relationship between the directors and company is just legalese disguising the actual practice of public companies. In practice, every publicly held company that is not a benefit corporation serves to maximize stakeholder earnings.
Yes but WHEN there is a conflict of interest, whose interest is put before the others? Within the confines of legality, companies have a lot of leeway when it comes to taking decisions that put customers and even their employees on the back-foot.
I did not say I am a lawyer - but that is a Supreme Court case any lawyer would be happy to cite in the court of law.
This is so annoying. I just had a Windows update, and had to decline Office and backups again. The worst one I've encountered is moving your home folder items to OneDrive without consent.
On the plus side of Windows added features, PowerToys has some nice tools!
For the audio device switching mentioned in the article: Try downloading Soundswitch: Fixed this for me. (Note: There's a scammy-looking software that also goes by this name; be careful!)
The "OOBE" post-update prompt has become incredibly toxic. The last one even started blocking Alt-Tab so you couldn't get out, and demanded a Microsoft account password which I never use so don't have memorized. And of course I couldn't get to my usual reminders. If I didn't have a mobile handy as backup (which I didn't, until recently) I'd basically be looking at a bricked PC.
This is about as dark-pattern-ey as it gets. Pretty sure I'm going to be making the jump to Linux for my next machine, or on this one if W10 becomes unusable after EoL.
I had a neighbor get completely locked out of a laptop after a Windows update due to this. They didn’t have the password or phone number to the Microsoft account. Of course, you can’t send a password reset email to the account you’re locked out of. I couldn’t figure out how to reverse it converting a local account into a cloud one.
There’s probably a way but I haven’t troubleshooted a Windows problem since 2008.
I have a bricked gaming laptop in my attic somewhere because of this. I still purchased another after, but I'm still vulnerable to the same problem because I don't have a MS account.
If it helps; I've never gotten an oobe from an update on win 11, though I have enabled auto login, and I had edited the install medium to add a local account.
I'm also in agreement that server-side, Windows 2000 server was peak.
XP/Window 7 were peak end-user OS's, once you got over the Fisher-Price look of XP.
The constraints you had in terms of user-UI were a massive advantage in terms of user-understanding. Now we're in a stupid era of the browser is the UI and everything is non-conformant with everything else in terms of looks/expectation/behaviour.
The version of MS-Office prior to the stupid ribbon-shit were also the peak versions. It's all been downhill since then with Windows ME and Windows 8 being exceptionally low points.
I'm about to shift to FreeBSD as my main driver as the Linux distribution fragmentation and wane in reliability/dependability and repeatability has given me the shits (how many apt-get equivalents are there now...?) I used to like Debian back in the day but now it and its derivatives (e.g. Ubuntu) give me the shits and Red-Hat and Fedora likewise, and Debian itself won't even install a working desktop. Apparently raising a bug for Fedora gets put into "Closed - not a bug" because IBM don't give a shit about quality anymore - even though the install resulted in an unbootable OS and I spent hours raising a proper bug report. Pop-OS was reasonable, but scaling where some apps have both big and little font sizes intermixed still mean its a clusterfuck of a kludge.
It's 2025 and apparently trying to mount network shares in fstab before the network interface is up isn't a bug. It's still not year of the desktop for Linux.
FWIW, I liked Apple in the 1980's - not so much since then.
I still appreciate all the contributions of those individuals out there is both GNU/Linux and the BSD'd trying to make the world a better place for themselves/others and sharing the results.
I have a Windows 7 PC that I decided to upgrade when the motherboard was about 10 years old. Expected it to just boot right up, motherboards haven't changed all that much. It would get to the part of the boot sequence where the window was coalescing on screen, and crash. A message flew by too quickly to see much less read, then totally black and unresponsive.
At that point I had a choice. I could buy a new version of Windows 11 for $200 which is much worse than the Windows 7 I gave up. Or I could switch to Linux. Hello Linux! There's one application I miss dearly that was Windows-only, but overall I'm a happy camper now.
Yep. The slow-down it had in responsiveness once you got the thick green cell-highlight cursor was sooo noticeable I immediately though it was a downgrade.
I remember the original dev's for the Excel application used to pride themselves on its performance. I don't know what happened, except probably upper-management overrule.
You can get all that and more with any modern Linux distribution without the telemetry, surveillance and without a forced cloud-linked account trying to constantly upsell you something without having to worry about most malware. Begging Microsoft for scraps in 2025 is just weak. Enjoy the slavery.
I will get irritated with the flaws in Windows; The ones listed in the article and more. I will also get irritated with the flaws of Linux and its flavors! Some examples
- The ABI diaspora
- Sudo nominally being for special/power use cases, but being required for many things
- Doesn't feel like it's aimed at single-user PCs, and has associated UX problems
- Non-standard hardware has limited support.
Summarized: I feel like Linux has some deep philosophical design differences from what I look for in a computer. I'm not trying to administer anything; I just want to write and launch software.
See my comment above, but I'm in the same boat. Linux definitely has problems that need to be solved, but unlike Windows its less likely to "change underneath me" once I've solved those problems to my satisfaction. In fact, a Windows update breaking my desktop is what facilitated my switch to Linux.
I'm also more willing to solve problems in Linux. Because I primarily write web software, I've also found "Linux debugging" skills more useful to learn than "Windows debugging skills" - the Linux skills tend to translate almost directly to my career. And it usually feels worthwhile to contribute good bug reports/fixes upstream; in stark contrast to Windows OS issues (and some of the more popular Windows software).
> Why does software installed by a user puts stuff where it will be seen by all users?
Because the software package has its install paths predetermined. But other distribution methods absolutely are available. Flatpak works much more like what you're accustomed to; you can supply --user at the command line. Of course, this also means you get the bloat you're accustomed to; it still tries to share dependencies, but it's much harder in that world.
Also, because it is a good thing to think twice before installing any software.
> When I'm not installing "for all users" UAC isn't there, right?
Yes, and you can correspondingly put an Appimage in ~/.local/bin (or anywhere, if you don't care about having it on your PATH) without sudo, or run flatpak install --user without sudo.
> For the purposes of installing software Linux is a single-user OS masquerading as multi-user.
I am the only actual person who uses my system, but I made 7 user accounts (so far) and use at least 2 of them regularly. To say nothing of all the non-privileged users the system creates automatically, specifically so that certain background processes can run without violating privacy or corrupting anything important if they go haywire.
> Because the software package has its install paths predetermined
That really doesn't explain why this still is the case for the vast majority of distributions in 2025.
Or why these "predetermined paths" could not be transparently provided to the package and actually lead wherever.
> Flatpak works much more like what you're accustomed to
It's not "what I'm accustomed to". It's how it's supposed to work.
I, the user, am installing some software for me, myself, the user. I am not installing it for all users of the system. And that is the primary case for installing almost anything, especially in a user-facing system.
And yet...
> I am the only actual person who uses my system, but I made 7 user accounts (so far) and use at least 2 of them regularly. To say nothing of all the non-privileged users the system creates automatically
And... this somehow makes any of my points invalid?
> specifically so that certain background processes can run without violating privacy or corrupting anything important if they go haywire.
What does this have to do with a user installing software? Literally nothing. Besides implying that Linux is a single-user system masquerading as multi-user. Where the simple act of installing user software for a user can apparently break the entire system because it's always installed for all users.
These seem very trivial, except the ABI (but only for people marketing software) and the last one, which is simply untrue.
If you absolutely refuse to handle your own system's security ("Enter a password to do something on my own computer? No thank you!"), you really should leave the management of your computer to Microsoft, and ask their permission personally to view your own files. They'll faceid you, consider the merits of your request, and decide how much access you should have to your own life.
In that way you can avoid sudo, or the concept of a multiuser computer entirely.
As for the last one, it is simply untrue. Linux supports as much as or more hardware than Windows. Windows will more likely support the latest greatest stuff because people don't release hardware specs. But once Linux catches up, it keeps that hardware compatibility longer, and can always be reverted back to by using an old kernel even a decade or two after a piece of hardware is dropped.
Context: I've been using linux for 20 years, and do currently at my job. "Linux has many, fully flexible user interfaces that can be customized however you like." feels like a "you're holding it wrong", or "chose the wrong distro".
I don't want to go into the details, but I regularly experience UX problems in Ubuntu. Even things like reading/writing a USB port requires sudo, or editing system config files, which is wild to me. And adding a trailing newline to the config file in question will prevent your GUI from booting. Adding an item to the PATH is a combo of unintuitive, or filled with incorrect instructions (Including Go's home page CAO yesterday...).
Or, software I write can't be launched without using having the user go to the CLI, or creating a GUI-specific config file and placing it in a certain location. This leads to the line I hear regularly "You should publish your software on the distro-specific app store", or "You should only install software from the app store". Which immediately leads me to think I have a use-case mismatch.
> I don't want to go into the details, but I regularly experience UX problems in Ubuntu. Even things like reading/writing a USB port requires sudo, or editing system config files, which is wild to me. And adding a trailing newline to the config file in question will prevent your GUI from booting. Adding an item to the PATH is a combo of unintuitive, or filled with incorrect instructions (Including Go's home page CAO yesterday...).
None of this sounds like anything I've experienced, or heard described, in 3 years of using the Ubuntu-derived Mint.
> Or, software I write can't be launched without using having the user go to the CLI, or creating a GUI-specific config file and placing it in a certain location.
How exactly are you distributing it? If the problem is e.g. that your users download an AppImage and it isn't executable, they can most likely change the permissions from the GUI. I don't know what you mean about GUI-specific config files. I had thought that https://specifications.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/la... was pretty widely recognized.
Distros don't generally have "app stores" but rather package repositories, modulo branding. Publishing there isn't about making your launcher work; it's about letting the system handle dependencies and letting the distro maintainers patch (and build trust in) your code.
To launch an executable in windows, you double click the icon in the GUI. To launch the same programmed compiled for Linux, you can't always do that depending on the distro's GUI layer. What you do in Gnome, for example, is create a .Desktop file, and place it in a certain location. Then it will show in your quick launch.
> None of this sounds like anything I've experienced, or heard described, in 3 years of using the Ubuntu-derived Mint.
To be more specific on those anecdotes I mentioned due to having hit them recently:
- Create an embedded device that talks to a PC over USB-serial. (Here you are not constrained to the whims of a GPOS! RTOSs are a dream in comparison, or forego entirely and use bare metal)
- Write PC software that talks to it (gets data from sensors etc)
- Try to run the program without Sudo on Linux. The USB won't work unless. I've heard the justification for this is that the USB might be a storage device, and storage devices should be restricted by the OS etc.
The PATH (and other environment-vars) in Linux are shell-specific. You regularly read instructions (I saw this in Go's official instructions yesterday) indicating to use the EXPORT command. This only works until you reboot; you have to hand-edit a sudo-protected file (bashrc, .profile etc), and there's a learning curve to it. I don't remember the details, but I've screwed it up multiple times.
> The PATH (and other environment-vars) in Linux are shell-specific.
PATH works the same way in Bash, sh, zsh etc. etc. Various shells do offer some additional ways to manipulate environment variables, but you can rely on things like export.
If you meant "specific to a shell process", then yes:
> You regularly read instructions (I saw this in Go's official instructions yesterday) indicating to use the EXPORT command. This only works until you reboot
See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1158091 . The export command is essential. But of course settings that persist between sessions, between reboots etc. will be stored in a file. How else could it work? The point is that you aren't forced to use a GUI and you can examine the file as plain text and comprehend it.
> you have to hand-edit a sudo-protected file (bashrc, .profile etc), and there's a learning curve to it.
It's only root-owned (what I guess you mean by "sudo-protected") if it's system-wide. Per-user settings only require that user's rights, exactly as one would expect. That's not different from having to be an admin user on Windows to change system environment variables. Most of these config files are actually auto-run scripts, and understanding the system is an important part of familiarizing yourself with Linux as a developer. Trust me, Bash is much more pleasant to program in than Windows Batch files.
> I don't remember the details, but I've screwed it up multiple times.
If you want a wrapper for the process, it's not hard to make one if you can't already find one. It's strange to me how many developers don't seem to have any interest in building or customizing their own toolchain.
I suspect I understand our disconnect! I am looking at the GPOS as a tool for scheduling, driver interfaces, providing threads, and a GUI etc. I want it to get out of the way and let me run software. It's not something I'm intrinsically interested in, or want to tinker with, or config in a way that lets me break it.
We choose which things we want to tinker with and improve, and which we would like to use as-is for that and other goals. For me, the OS is in the latter category.
I'm afraid I don't understand why you see the things that you do as "tinkering". To me, automation is just what you do with a computer (and operating with plain text files makes that much easier than being forced through GUIs for everything), and before you can do that you need to figure out what you find annoying enough to automate.
Got it, but those are more Ubuntu specific qualms that you have, not arguments against Linux in general.
I use NixOS and I don't have UX problems because my UX is fully customized to work exactly how I want.
Plus, for every but of friction you may experience in Linix, the cons of Microsoft are much greater. They have no concern for your privacy, and exploit their workers and the environment.
Last time I used Microsoft (~8 years ago) I couldn't get that malware OS to stop forcefully suggesting and using their cloud services automatically.
There are many things that MS does that are just unacceptable.
I don't think that would be enough: adding those people to a team won't matter if the overall vision isn't there.
It needs, and I'm about to choke on my words here, a Steve Jobs at the helm saying "No, it needs to be like this".
Yes, I know that won't achieve perfection but there needs to be a coherent vision of what the OS is trying to be, or who it is aiming for.
Linux, right now is pure techie-driven. There isn't any vision at all! Every distro is subtly different and reflects the wants of the team that work on it.
It needs a company to take a distro and pick a direction, e.g. Linux for normies would have to remove almost all traces of command line, hard disk partitions, configs, package managers etc. All that shit would have to be hidden away, still in the background and available if wanted, but to use the OS it should not be a requirement.
> Now do the same in Windows. Messing with system files, without knowing what you are doing, is a recipe to disaster.
I think I didn't communicate something clearly: My concern isn't that misediting a system file causes disaster. It's that you need to edit system files to do routine things.
On Windows, the solution is simple: USB/serial works without editing system files or requiring launching the program via CLI with sudo. You double-click the program in GUI, and it works.
I switched my primary desktop to Debian XFCE a year ago. Took me a while to "distro shop" and install NVIDIA drivers and set my keyboard shortcuts, but now that everything works it keeps chugging along with no drama. I turn my PC on, start streaming music, and hack on my little side project code. Lovely.
Most non-gamers probably only need a web browser, so I think a lot of people could get away with this (maybe with a distro that pre-installs drivers they need).
Frustration free as Windows? You're kidding, right?
I recently showed a client of mine how Ubuntu works out of the box. No hours of rebooting, no ads in any menus, no online account requirement, no persistent anti-malware scanning, no UI elements from the 90s showing through. Drivers can be an issue, power usage perhaps, maybe sleep is annoying (especially on shit hardware) on laptops but apart from that I don't know how you can even compare the frustration from a recent Windows system with a modern Linux desktop.
Windows isn't frustration-free for non-tech users, though. At least in my social circle people constantly complain about Windows doing stupid things and changing all the time.
I helped some elderly friends and neighbours switch to Linux and they love it. Just a handful of programs, everything works, and nothing ever changes.
The counterpart to that is enjoy your next "Linux Evening". I've had two Linux evenings this week, until I finally decided to give up and restore a backup
The ARCH/UBUNTU/DEBIAN triad have been consecutively producing a bottom contender for your desktop 30 years in a row. Slavery comes in different forms.
They're doing the same thing with C#. The amount crap they have added to that language over the years is mind boggling - yet, we still don't have sum types which is the one thing that every C# developer I have worked with _really_ wants.
I have mixed views on this. We’ve gotten a lot of good with the bad. I think “C#, the Good Parts” would be a much thicker book than “JavaScript, the Good Parts”
Maybe, it's not my favourite language, but it seems basically fine. A new version drops, my five, ten year old code largely still just works and maybe there are improvements I have a use for in new code.
Some of the remaining warts are because it is wedded to the .NET CLR, so if the CLR says you can't do that then, too bad C# can't do that. It would not be practical to do anything about those.
We're discussing Windows and all its ad-ware/invasive changes, and someone brings up C# without giving a real explanation or examples.
The last few C# versions brought primary constructors, collection expressions, records(!), tons of Span<T> improvements/support, etc. I just flicked through the list, and nothing that stuck out to me as being bloated.
The main bloat C# has is older stuff that you really shouldn't be using anymore (e.g. ArrayList, dynamic, Thread, delegate keyword, etc).
> We're discussing Windows and all its ad-ware/invasive changes, and someone brings up C#
I brought up C# because the article discusses a Microsoft Windows design philosophy that I feel is also reflected in their approach to C#. It’s a Microsoft thing.
I agree with you that the examples you mention were great additions to the language! But I still think the C# design team has some seriously screwed up priorities. My theory is that this one year cycle they are on is hampering their ability to make changes (like sum types) that require more than a year of work.
See the links I listed above. None of those features solved a language problem as large as the lack of sum types. It baffles me that they even spent time on them before providing a feature that is in such high demand (and has been for more than a decade).
I understand that you shouldn’t always give users what they ask for - but this is something that has picked up steam in other languages because it’s actually useful and makes code bases easier to maintain.
It's anything but a small language, but I wouldn't consider the stuff they're adding crap. They're useful features, but yes, this does have a price and makes the language larger.
There is value in a language with minimal syntax like Go, but it's not the only choice. C# is a pretty nice language overall, even with all the warts. But every language people actually use does have ugly stuff somewhere.
Presumably, you use a function like this to represent your sum type containing the value "avalue":
(readA, readB) => readA(avalue)
The problem I have is that when you create this function you have to reify the return type Z. You can't use this value in arbitrary contexts where the accessors need to return different types.
You want to return different types depending on the branch?
I mean you could return a sum type if you really need to.
Formally a sum type is just something that turns a pair of functions to Z into a single function from the sum type to Z. In fact it shouldn't do more than that.
Yep, this is exactly the approach we take. It works ok-ish, but it’s far from elegant. In our case ‘read’ is ‘Switch’. I think it’s a fairly common pattern in C# these days.
Yes, very clunky. One of the big issues with this approach is that switch expressions still require a default branch because there’s no way in C# to express a completely closed set. This makes future changes to the set (sum type) hazardous.
My partner uses Windows and I occasionally provide my amateurish tech support. One thing not mentioned in this article is the right click situation. I can't really describe what's wrong because I've not used Windows regularly in ten years. All I know is it is very confusing and basic tasks are hidden behind an extra click. I'm sure this is another mcrib situation but I wanted to mention it. There's probably a way to change it. But there are so many things like this and they usually come up when I'm trying to solve some other problem and don't have time to get distracted finding the setting. Is it so hard to make basic functionality the default and let users add on some of these features if they want to.
So when I got forced to use Win11 I went to look for a script that disable telemetry. Then I see the script offers the feature of using old behavior for right click menu...
I immediately started to think: but old behavior was so simple and obvious, what is there to change? The I right clicked to check. Immediately was hit with the wtf changes. Why? Why MS?
The purpose behind the new right-click menu is performance. The old right-click menu would load modules (typically 3rd party) that would cause significant lag on first-click [of a specific type of file].
This is not the right place go improve the performance. With so many useless bloatware and tools I don’t need, this is not the place where I want improved performance
I've said it many times in the past: the OS is a toolbox, just like a carpenters toolbox.
I use it to keep my apps (tools) in. I use the apps (hammer, saw, screwdriver etc.) to get a job done, then I put them away. The job of the OS isn't to recommend that I use Hammer v2.0 or to update my toolbox to the latest version.
The OS is, or should be, out of my way.
I agree with others here: Windows 2000 was peak OS for me!
I boot into my Windows partition for work-related activities often, and hear about the demise of Windows all the time.
Am I the only one who doesn't see it? I have all of the annoying stuff disabled, and basically have installed nothing besides the standard productivity/office tools. For me it's just a clean setup that stays out of my way. I'm running an 11 EAP build, and even then it doesn't crash, the software just works, and I never tinker with configuration or anything.
I trust people are in fact having issues, I just can't relate. Maybe it's how I'm using it.
It’s your install. You aren’t running a consumer machine with all the garbage and bloat ware installed. My wife and I had personal laptops the same hardware level. Mine had a clean windows 10 install I paid some guy to do. Hers wasn’t. Hers became unusable after a year. My kid still uses mine several years later.
How long did it take you to disable everything, and in you many places? Are you sure you've disabled everything, or just learned to live with it (e.g. Win+S search defaults to first searching the internet, and only then showing local results)
I will be honest since im with parent here, it took me literally 15m to figure everything out when I reinstalled this week. I just do all the nos on oob, once I get to desktop I uninstall OneDrive (via control panel, etc..), go to settings, activate windows -> disable stuff that I dont want -> customize start menu to my liking (settings button near power button, left-aligned, etc..) -> open start menu and right click uninstall all the apps (whatsapp, netflix, outlook, etc..) -> then go to explorer and change the defaults to my preferences and lastly open gpedit and disable all the AI and cloud search stuff under administrative templates (they are all there and have clean descriptions!!).
So you documented that work and made it public for the rest of us, right?
Were we collectively using the same setup that turned all this stuff off — and I’m talking a real project to cleanup Windows installations — we’d be in a better spot. Unfortunately people want to profit from doing so, so nah we don’t really do that.
O&O shutup seems to take on a lot of this AND its free! This is what I usually recommend.
In all Linux desktop environments, you have to spend a bunch of time cleaning out its adware, surveillance, work around its desire to use a remote password to access your local computer, and somehow suppress its desire to move your local files to the cloud?
This is not actually true in any way. When you install Debian, or most distros, you spend no time on this. If Ubuntu or Firefox slips something in that looks anything like an ad or a necessary cloud or telemetry, you scream it to the hills.
edit: if you consider your sibling replies, the time that it takes for a very technical person to get their Windows system usable is between 15 minutes and a week, and it involves dozens of steps.
> In all Linux desktop environments, you have to spend a bunch of time cleaning out its adware, surveillance, work around its desire to use a remote password to access your local computer, and somehow suppress its desire to move your local files to the cloud?
Hold on a second, that’s not what I said. I said that Linux environments have “annoying stuff”. Firefox has been “slipping in” stuff for the past decade, Ubuntu and gentoo have terminal ads, Debian required extra steps to get my hardware working, and arch is the epitome of “I will never be done tweaking stuff”
Not the parent, but last year I moved on to Win11 on a new laptop.
It took... about a week at worst, I think.
Just run the bundled distribution to look how it goes, note the things you need to throw out, do a clean install (see my other comment in this thread), apply the tweaks.
The longest one was to disable the effing F23 (aka Copilot) key, PowerToys weren't helping so I used the trusted SharpKeys, which I already use for 10+ years to remap idiotic PrtSc to ContextMenu on ThinkPads.
Sure, I'm not your average computer illiterate Joe, but if we are talking about a comparison with a typical *nix distribution... like in a sibling comment there is "Not everyone knows how to do that" about tweaking, but the same applies to *nix too.
I worry that things like ads in the start menu/search, OneDrive/Xbox/Office nags etc will morph into full enshittification, and ads you can't get rid of. It hasn't happened to an intolerable degree yet, but seems to be gradually getting worse.
I had been using Windows only for gaming in recent years, but it’s not even good for that anymore. If you run any bloat-removal tool, a bunch of things stop working — even internet connectivity.
So I went through a period of distro hopping and ended up choosing the distro I used to make the most memes about: Arch. Very solid, always on the latest drivers and kernel, everything works out of the box, and I can play pretty much any game without issues. I’d recommend it 10/10.
To be fair, I did run into one problem: in the Red Dead Redemption remake, the game would freeze on the initial screen, but that got resolved.
There is a post on reddit explaining this in detail, try googling it or I'll link it if I can find it.
Basically set you region to Ireland while installing the OS and edge can be removed, start menu bing search can be removed, ai crap and all ads can be removed.
Microsoft adds stuff "we" don't need to everything. Think about the ribbons of tools available in Office -- Excel and Word in particular have features for pretty much anything you can think of. I'm not arguing it's not a valid choice -- I'm sure someone needs all those features. But for me, personally, I prefer products that do a smaller set of things simply and perfectly, as opposed to products that do All The Things somewhat well. Even if it does everything very well, having all those extra features in the way makes it harder to get the few things I want to do harder.
The title is misleading. It should be "Microsoft keeps adding crap into Windows that no one would ever want."
If Microsoft wanted to fix Windows it would be an easy task.
Step 1: Delete everything added since Windows 7.
Step 2: Delete all dotnet crap.
Step 3: Make the APIs good by deleting almost everything and making new plain C89 APIs.
Step 4: Realize we need a new operating system and delete all of Windows and start over.
My very cynical hypothesis: the time for mainstream or mainstream-adjacent tech doing anything actually useful for us is ending or over (if such a time ever existed). It's mostly rent seeking garbage now as tech matures and companies get greedy. Too much software is utter trash and is shoved in our face to display ads, collect data, or sell something. Hardware is increasingly locked down into crap-ridden environments. I mean you can barely even buy a device and boot the OS without some corporation like Microsoft trying to shoehorn you into 20 useless features to suck the joy from your life while their wallet gets fat. Features for the sake of features, churn the sake of churn - it's an increasingly sickening rot all the way down. Just give us a simple computer that does what we need. Not everything needs to be an infinite revenue source.
I recently built a new PC and faced the dilemma of paying Microsoft for their experience or rolling the dice with Linux (nothing to lose). I've been running Kubuntu and while not perfect it certainly works well enough.
The sad part is that I'd gladly pay Microsoft double what they currently charge for something that basically works like Windows 7 did. It's like a theme park where I pay admission for the privilege to be upsold various add-ons. So now I just don't pay them anything.
The other day my Windows locked behind an advertisement for Microsoft's backup services, trying to trick me into surrendering all my private data to their servers.
They even added a typical dark pattern that on clicking "No" another "But... We recommend it, are you sure?" appeared.
What a disgrace to push such an ad on people's computers. This abusive behavior is their company culture.
The whole UI feels like it was thrown together by 15 different organisations.
I work in the networking space, and regularly tweak the IP settings to do my job.
Over the last 25 years, I have been utterly confounded as the number of clicks it takes to get from the Desktop to changing an IP address or DNS setting seemed to jump from 2 or 3 to something like 5 or 6 with all these intermediate settings pages that don't appear to serve any real purpose.
Just show me my damn adapters and let me configure them!
Win 11 seems to be moving back in the right direction, but I switched my daily driver long ago and won't be coming back.
7 is really good. I do something similar. I'm forced to use a windows laptop supplied by a client to connect to their network (and I shouldn't connect between my home devices and it). So I'm often working on Windows.
I tend to have (on two monitors):
Built in monitor, any desktop- MŚ teams, Outlook and Notepad.
Second (4K) monitor,
Desktop 1-tmux in WSL.
Desktop 2-Web browsers
Desktop 3-spare
Desktop 4-My Ide (10+ Windows if vscode with WSL plugin)
Desktop 5-Excel,Word etc.
AutoHotKey let's me change between desktops with win+X key (where X is a number) and moving an app to a specific desktop is only win+shift+X away.
I've been using a similar setup on Linux for many years, except outlook/teams is replaced by my Cctv window. The only problem is on Linux if you have focus let's say in desktop 1 monitor 2 (tmux in alactity), you them do win+2 to go to screen 2 into a browser(still monitor 2), you then press win+2 hoping to go back to desktop 1 alacritty... Your focus ends up on monitor 1 in the Cctv window.
This never happens on Windows. When I go back to a desktop X the focus stays with where I've left it.
I just wish they sold windows professional. Like an actual Windows professional that has no ads because you paid extra money. You can buy a Microsoft surface device and Windows is still filled with adware because there’s no professional version of Windows.
That has been a thing since at least Windows 2000 Professional...
I don't know the exact crapware situation, but at least with pro you have access to group policies, and then you can usually disable the crap. (still ridiculous)
but it does show how the suggestion for a more expensive version of a thing without ads is niche at best, since even the people complaining about it aren't aware when it does exist.
OneDrive is so persistent that on locked down systems where the whole concept is that the machine can only take exams, there's still a problem where Microsoft are like "Oh, do you want OneDrive?". No. Fucking no. They can't have OneDrive, they aren't entitled to OneDrive, and you couldn't install OneDrive if they said "Yes". Fuck off.
Observations like "I know this upsets some HN people (for some reason)" and "lol, I got down voted" are not productive meta commentary. Writing like this just annoys readers and highlights the lack of substance in the rest of the comment.
I'm pointing out that Hacker news has a lot of members that get very upset if you suggest using Linux when they complain about Windows. I think meta commentary about the platform is valid, especially since the platform is just posts and comments.
That meta commentary was part of the substance of my comment. And it relates to the article.
To be more specific, I feel strongly against people who defend Microsoft, and their massively immoral actions like their military ties, and invasion of privacy.
I think these people defend Microsoft largely because they are used to it, therefore have a bias towards it, and because they feel attacked when linux users point out that they are supporting an evil megacorporation.
It's sort of like how members of one religion often feel attacked by the mere existence of people who follow other religions, or no religion at all.
I think that people with sufficient technical capability shouldn't support microsoft, and should use open source software.
Yes, I understand all of that (although I don't have all the same ethical or moral compunctions that you do). I still think that if/when you seek to engage with that audience, you should still follow community norms.
One annoying thing about linux are drivers. They often don't work out of the box. E.g. fingerprint reader, screen brightness, audio too low. I tried multiple distros on multiple laptops, there is almost always some fiddling needed.
On the other hand corp forced me to move from pc to mac, hardware is awesome but I need to get used to software (keyboard shortcuts), it looks and feels like linux with drivers that actually work (I know it technically it's not linux, I'm just saying that it feels like it, probably due to history of unix/bsd/linux).
Speak for yourself. When I plug in an Nvidia GPU, MacOS plugs its ears and pretends that working compute drivers don't exist. On Linux it's plug-n-play.
Same with a Wacom tablet, ext4-formatted drive, Xbox/Nintendo controllers, DAC software, Sony LDAC headphones... much of Linux' driver support is best-in-class. It just depends on what you own (like all OSes).
A lot of this works fine on KDE, but Linux and BSDs provides multiple desktop environments and people can pick what they like. MS cannot really do this as it relies on being the standard GUI everyone knows. Even things like the taskbar being in the "wrong" place confuses a significant proportion of people.
As for stuff "we" do not need, who is "we"? MS needs the stuff, which really means some decision maker within MS is persuaded it is needed, and their incentives do align all the well with those of users.
There are ways to get rid of all the nonsense by uninstalling it via Powershell or by blocking it via GPO/Registry. But the main issue here is that Microsoft changes the settings every now and then and all of a sudden, something that you considered disabled is fully enabled again.
Other issue is that some things just cannot be uninstalled. Because of the GDPR I've seen companies run AppLocker & Co. to block Microsoft sh*t from running that they couldn't get a hold of otherwise.
I can see ReactOS getting a lot more developers and a huge budget if this goes on...
I agree with this article except for this request,
> Make audio device switching easy
> One of the biggest unresolved hassles in Windows 11 is how difficult it is to switch audio output and input devices at the OS level. It seems like almost every day I have a problem where I want to listen to audio on my desktop speaker, but instead the sound starts coming out of my USB headset. A good chunk of the time, my computer also wants to send audio out of my monitors, which have 3.5mm audio jacks, but nothing is connected to them.
They (finally!) added this in Windows 11, and it's one of my favourite quality of life improvements. Ctrl + Win + V.
I'm pretty sure your comment was sarcastic, but I'll add the anecdote that this is the year I moved to Linux. I've running Linux Mint as my main driver for a few months. For decades I've used Linux on servers or on an extra laptop or as a second OS to boot into as a curiosity.
I was capable enough to be professionally effective with Linux but I stayed on Windows because it was the path of least resistance. I had decades of conditioning and habits built around how Windows worked. Everything was installed and configured and setup and familiar. So I just accepted the nuisance of the injected ads and data harvesting and bloatware because it was the path of least resistance. But despite all that, I finally had enough of Microsoft's shenanigans and resolved I was done.
I used ChatGPT to successfully navigate some of the more esoteric errors, installation headaches, and software setup stumbles I've encountered getting Linux set up. No Wine or VMs either, RhythmBox and LibreOffice and MakeMKV and Steam all work great on Linux. If I need Office I've got the Office web apps. PC game support has gradually improved on Linux. The availability of emulators and Emulation Station means I don't miss my extensive LaunchBox setup that sits on my Windows partition. The end result is a setup that has kept me out of my Windows partition for months at a time.
I don't really care who wins, whatever that means, but Linux is polished and fantastic and performant. I wish I'd made the jump a decade ago.
> I've running Linux Mint as my main driver for a few months.... I used ChatGPT to successfully navigate some of the more esoteric errors, installation headaches, and software setup stumbles I've encountered getting Linux set up.
Out of interest, any specific issues that stand out in your memory?
There were some odds and ends around partition management that made me hesitate. ChatGPT helped me distill what I wanted to do into a plan that made sense to me.
In terms of issues, getting certain mounts to persist took some time. I had jump back into Windows and change some settings to get Windows to give up control.
I tried to install a few packages, like Emulation Station, that presented some headaches but I worked through it.
I tried installing SpaceDrive and it was a slog that eventually went nowhere. It took a lot of effort to get it compiled and running and then it didn't really work, so I gave up. It's alpha software, but given the press (and investment) it's received I expected a smoother experience.
Installing MakeMKV took a small bit of gymnastics to install, but once it was installed it worked great. Setting up backups on Mint didn’t behave as I expected at first, but I figured it out.
I didn’t really have any issues, per se, with Mint. It was a breeze. I’m sure the forums are great, but GPT hit enough that it wasn't too terrible when it missed. And it has a lot less latency than searching a forum or posting and waiting for responses.
It took me hours with Windows 10 and PowerShell to scrub all the crap out of the default OS install. I don’t even want to know what that process would be with 11.
Ok, total shower thought but what if the likes of Dell, HP, Lenovo, Samsung, Acer, Asus etc. got together and said "Guys, let's form a consortium to create a new OS (based on Linux, of course) to break the Microsoft hold".
Would it work? Would there be demand?
Hell, I'll run it for them: I just want Windows 2000 with some security fixes :-)
Just a crazy thought but hey, you never know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Probably not, based upon the extent to which enterprises have been integrated with Windows. Enterprises use a lot of functionality which is not really visible to the casual user. All that functionality would need to be retrofitted into Linux and we get right back into the whole bloat cycle again.
I have actively been trying to move out from Windows but I can't find a good replacement. MacOS has honestly been the only best alternative so far but I can't play games there.
Please, just point to a good Windows alternative and I'll leave, Microsoft can play these stupid games because they know their marketshare. We are stuck with them.
"The operating system's corporate parent isn't a good listener either, festooning the OS with useless features no one asked for."
Well, someone inside the company definitely asked for them. Their Microsoft lackeys then delivered the "new features", as they always do.
"In recent years, we've seen Redmond push for useless local AI features, in a bid to sell everyone Copilot+ PCs that they don't need."
Microsoft has been selling computer users on "features" they don't need since at least the 1990s.
"The house Bill Gates built has turned Windows into a piece of spyware, insisting that you sign in with a Microsoft account so it can gather more data about you, and cajoling you to run Recall, which takes snapshots of your sensitive personal information."
Wager: Thus author is not switching away from Windows. Ever. He will jump through any hoop. What choice does he have. None. He may even be paid to keep using it
Microsoft collects vast amounts of data both from and about computer users, including computer user behaviour, and yet the author claims Microsoft "isn't a good listener". I beg to differ.
With all the data it collects why would Microsoft ever need to "listen" to tech journalists' opinions, including ones who purport to speak for other computer users.
The company has ample data about what computer users are willing to endure. It is most certainly "listening", i.e., monitoring. It began acquiring companies just to get more data. It's collecting vast amounts of data _from a variety of sources_ about computer users every second.
Over thirty years of complaining about Microsoft Windows, and to what end. Windows users generally cannot and do not switch to another OS. Truthfully, very few complain or request features. Those who do are a "vocal minority". There used to be entire websites such as annoyances.org devoted to complaints about Windows. Not anymore.
Perhaps the true goal of "articles" such as this is not to obtain changes to Windows (probability: almost zero) but to garner an audience of frustrated Windows users and boost online ads revenue. With onlilne ads as the driving incentive, the author and Redmond are part of the same problem.
"If you were to go back in time to the DOS era and tell people staring at their blue WordPerfect 5.1 screens that they could move text, images, videos, or even files between applications with a couple of keystrokes, they'd be blown away."
For me, the solution to clipboards in VGA textmode (not "terminal") was and still is tmux buffers
Combined with UNIX pipes this is more powerful and flexible than anything possible using Windows
"2. Two or three clocks in the Taskbar
3. Add a fourth modifier key
4. Allow remapping of all keyboard shortcuts
5. Bring back the movable, resizable taskbar
6. Firewall for audio
7. Pin apps to specific screens
8. Program groups launch multiple, related apps at once
9. Make audio device switching easy
10. Cut the Microsoft-induced distractions"
I have none of these problems using a UNIX-like OS but let's assume that's irrelevant
The relevant difference is that if there is something I do not like in the UNIX-like OS, I can edit the source and recompile
Not possible with Windows; the author is stuck with whatever Microsoft decides to do next
Futile appeals to Redmond may continue for another three decades
Well, as much as I like to join in taking a dump on Microsoft, this sort of thing is inevitable, in any OS, any software, any product:
The longer a product goes, the more features it gets (or loses) that some people want, some people don't.
It would be nice to have an easy to modify checklist of what stuff you want to keep/remove on a default installation.
I think the current state of iOS is pretty good in regards to that: You get a somewhat-sane default pack out of the box, and you can remove crap like Freeform and Journal (which should have been part of Notes to begin with) and install other Apple apps from the App Store if you need em.
AI in notepad is not something that should be in an OS. Any OS. The os is supposed to be there to sit between your applications and your hardware. It's supposed to offer some sort of interface for you to operate your machine.
Having arbitrary features that connect to arbitrary web-services which could extremely easily be an optional application is not fine.
It has only sailed because we lack competition in the OS space. Any competent competitor could eat MS' lunch by now, if not for the decades of entrenchment that Windows has had.
I wish Microsoft reverted to its 1990s style of making tools for power users that don’t get in the way. Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me. Security issues aside, it was a solid OS. It also had a non-flashy interface that got out of my way. No annoying notifications, no distractions: just pure Windows. Windows 2000 respected the user.
Today’s versions of Windows seem less respectful of the user. Microsoft is treating Windows as a platform to advertise Microsoft’s products rather than as strictly a productivity tool. Even if a lot of users these days use computers more like entertainment and communication devices rather than productivity tools, software should still get out of the user’s way. Software should shut up and do what the user commands.
Unfortunately there are other software systems that have the same philosophy. Google constantly nags me regarding logging in and switching to Chrome. Even macOS has gotten a lot more nag screens in the past decade compared to the glory years of Jobs-era Mac OS X.
It’s amazing how so many organizations are dependent on Windows, macOS, and Google for their productivity, yet these platforms have become more annoying to use over the years, becoming impediments to productivity.
"Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me."
Exactly the same here (and I've said so many times over the past 20 or so years). Sure, the W2K UI could be tarted up a little bit but no major functional changes. With security and hardware updates I'd be completely happy.
Microsoft's behavior forced me into migrating to Linux (and in that I'm not alone).
xfce + Chicago 95 is a lovely environment
https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95
Same, I'm just not doing Win11, I would rather run DOS.
I am persuaded Microsoft’s current team couldn’t build win2k again.
They've got the talent (and almost 10x the headcount), it's the organizational architecture and perverse incentives that would (and do) prevent them from building it.
It wasn't a lack of talent that caused a team to decide to put "Microsoft Rewards" ads that look like phishing scams on start menus and in notifications. Instead, some PM got a bonus or promotion for making and increasing usage of this awful product, degrading the user experience and siphoning off a tiny amount of money. A different organization would have had the ability to realize that's a terrible "feature" to add to the OS.
I think that "current team" refers to the entire team, not just the software devs. It includes the PMs, marketing people, etc. as well. I think that rayiner is correct, Microsoft isn't capable of making something as good as win2k or win7 anymore.
I still use Windows 2k machines for Photoshop and other old Adobe tools that didn't have much in the way of DRM. It's an operating system that respects the user, it doesn't act as a babysitter.
And I still have a W2K machine that I use for offline tasks, some are software related (compatibility), others support older hardware that's still functional (back then, forced/planned obsolescence wasn't quite as bigger deal). I've my ancient HP LJ-III printer connected to the PC via its parallel port.
It is really easy, they could just take LTSC and market it to a different audience, and it would be 95% there.
But they won’t, because they don’t care.
> because they don’t care.
I don't think that's the right reason. They very much care about the opposite, that is, realizing their strategy of migrating from "buy-once-use-forever" to the subscription model. That's the reason they force everybody to use online user accounts and so on.
LTSC is a direct threat to this model so it's practically impossible to use at home/small business legally.
Exactly - LTSC is awesome
It's like real windows again.
> Today’s versions of Windows seem less respectful of the user.
This is a massive understatement. These days Microsoft is openly and aggressively hostile to the user and its getting worse every update. This is yet another of the curses of monopoly, the monopolists will eventually hold those under its sway with utter contempt. They are going to do things their way, and you are going to take it.
> > Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me.
> These days Microsoft is openly and aggressively hostile to the user and its getting worse every update.
In my opinion, the moment at which Microsoft started being actively hostile to the user was when they added WGA in the Windows XP era. Its existence meant that the owner of the computer would no longer be considered a trusted party; that piece of code was actively working against the computer owner. That led Microsoft to gradually adopt a mindset in which the owner of the computer is no longer supposed to be in control of the computer. That mindset got even stronger with the addition of DRM (which treats computer owners as if they were actively malicious), and with malware protection measures like Secure Boot and Kernel Patch Protection (which treat only code explicitly authorized by Microsoft as reliable).
The way I see it related to this are the questions who was/is paying MS for windows or who are their customers (at various points in time). At the time counterfeiting was meant to be the main concern, someone was paying for it and the money didn't flow through to MS. Between the cost of windows being hidden away for someone buying a OEM machine or wrapped up in a contract for businesses there probably wasn't many that deliberately chose or were aware of that particular software component in what they were buying. The rise of mobiles and ad networks meant no one thought about paying for the OS software, consumers would never pay for firmware on any other electronics and that assumption followed on so the costs were absorbed by whoever designed the platform, manufacturer or carrier. It pays to be the middleman though, through various app stores.
There's also the move from making an application for an OS (for many GUI tools mostly explored what they need to provide, are 'done' and stable by now) towards clients for an online service, cross platform frameworks or websites where you could argue the browser is the OS shell. I'd guess if there's any strategic failing for MS with windows, it's that they haven't given developers much reason to make apps _for windows_ with things that can't be done elsewhere, even for gaming the constraint is loosening, and a lot of that is driven by AMD/nvidia/intel or following what is getting made for consoles.
I don't think it has to do with monopoly, adtech is the problem IMO. If you are not on the adtech train you lose
In a truly competitive market with many equal(-ish) players, then the software with things people hate most, like adtech, would lose out to those that ones that provide what people want the most, like speed/stability/usability.
Do you think so? The problem with adtech is that it subsidizes the products by trading a margin of annoyance for extra revenue, allowing lower consumer prices. I would argue that the current market already does have many evenly matched players, and they naturally gravitate toward an equilibrium where they have as many revenue-bearing annoying features as the market will bear. As an example of a correction I recall the old days of popover and popunder windows that were worse than today's run of the mill site.
This is why it's hard to find an affordable dumb modern TV. They do exist, but they are pricy and made in small volumes. The market has spoken loud and clear.
> Even macOS has gotten a lot more nag screens in the past decade compared to the glory years of Jobs-era Mac OS X.
I bought a new iPad the other day. I've got notifications in System Preferences advertising five different services I don't want, plus more notifications in individual apps (like an advertisement for the Apple TV subscription in the TV app, which is not the same thing as the subscription service). I don't want Apple TV, Apple-filtered News, whatever the Apple exercise thing is, or the Apple Cultural Experience: just the hardware and software I bought.
Yes - and the Apple Card advertisement in the wallet app. Or a persistent notification badge to turn on iCloud.
I’ve made my decisions, leave me alone!
> I’ve made my decisions, leave me alone!
Perhaps you and GP aren't really the target market for their products. Part of why, after many years of Slackware and Arch Linux on desktops I assembled myself, compiling kernel modules, etc etc, I decided to pay Apple for the past decade is exactly because I don't want to make these decisions.
Frankly I pay Apple for the following things, in order or descending importance to me:
1) Decisions / sensible defaults / ecosystem / walled garden;
2) MagSafe cable so I don't trip on cords and/or damage my machines;
3) The subjective feeling that their corporate interests are more aligned with mine than other players in the market, viz. privacy etc.;
4) Pixel density;
5) Well-built aluminum bodies;
6) Large trackpads;
To be fair, I'm not saying the prompting for things I don't want (e.g. I don't consume any media services or exercise stuff) isn't annoying, but it seems to only happen once I switch devices every few years. It's been useful for me to discover services I wouldn't know about otherwise, which I now am a customer of, such as iCloud.
You make a great point - I am still a Mac user because their ecosystem is thoughtful and cohesive and their computers have lasted forever.
I guess I just wish they weren’t so… pushy. As a consumer, I get nudged by all kinds of companies every day, so I get a little… overstimulated (?) by it all, and sometimes just want to use it the way that I want to use the device.
I’m also the guy that has turned off notifications for almost every phone app, because it feels invasive of my brain space… I want to decide when I will use an app and when I won’t.
Or Firefox asking me to make it my default browser for the billionth time
I can’t defend the Apple Card. But having a persistent notification to turn on iCloud is good for the user so they don’t lose irreplaceable pictures.
Now the fact that fifteen years later that iCloud is only 5GB for free is inexcusable
> But having a persistent notification to turn on iCloud is good for the user so they don’t lose irreplaceable pictures.
Are you saying it's not okay for a user to decide they just plain don't want it? Why shouldn't be they be allowed to dismiss it permanently?
The one good thing about Apple is that they at least have the decency to shut the fuck up once you pay them.
Meanwhile Microsoft kept showing me upsells in File Explorer to move this or that to OneDrive despite me already paying for the damn thing.
A persistent notification badge on Settings because it believes I just haven't gotten to setting up Siri after all these years
> It’s amazing how so many organizations are dependent on Windows, macOS, and Google for their productivity, yet these platforms have become more annoying to use over the years, becoming impediments to productivity.
"Extinguish" is out; "Enshittify" is in. (Maybe the other Es have also changed.)
TL;DR American companies are legally obligated to put the interests of shareholders before customers and employees. (Off-topic) This should explain why layoffs are so acceptable, even in the face of record profits.
There’s a reason why their stock price is through the roof. Companies in the US have their first and foremost duty towards Shareholders, and only shareholders. This is not an opinion, I am speaking legally.[1] And what the shareholders want is for the company to squeeze out every dollar it possibly can from its products.
[1] Shareholder Primacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Please read the "Significance" section of the Wikipedia article you linked. It shows that your claim that this is a legal requirement isn't as clear-cut as you make it to be.
"...this is a legal requirement isn't as clear-cut as you make it to be."
The legal legal requirement can be questioned but heaven help the modern CEO that doesn't abide by the shareholders-first ethos. Before the 1980s (before Thatcher, Reagan, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek et al era) companies had an understanding that they had a responsibility to both shareholders and the community that they operated in.
That latter notion is long since dead.
From reading your source, it doesn't really sound like a legal requirement, since the "business judgment rule" kind of supersedes it.
I think it's more that the people boards put in charge of businesses know which side of their bread is buttered on and naturally will try to make board members/shareholders happy or they'll be out of a job.
Customers/employees are treated as just means to that end.
You beg the question of whether the changes they make are good for shareholder value.
Maybe they print money in spite of the user hostile stuff.
"This is not an opinion, I am speaking legally"
Hi, as former member of a board of directors, and also as a current shareholder in a company, you are wrong. The fiduciary duties owed to the company arise from the legal relationship between the directors and the company directed and controlled by them. The fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders do not arise from that legal relationship.
Try again when you actually graduate law school. Maybe then you can speak legally about something I do PROFESSIONALLY.
You're not saying anything, though you may think you are. Fiduciary duties owed to the company arising from the legal relationship between the directors and company is just legalese disguising the actual practice of public companies. In practice, every publicly held company that is not a benefit corporation serves to maximize stakeholder earnings.
Yes but WHEN there is a conflict of interest, whose interest is put before the others? Within the confines of legality, companies have a lot of leeway when it comes to taking decisions that put customers and even their employees on the back-foot.
I did not say I am a lawyer - but that is a Supreme Court case any lawyer would be happy to cite in the court of law.
Such a snarky comment won't get anybody agreeing with you. Nor yoh actually explained anything.
Also, I was talking about the company’s fiduciary duties, NOT duties owed TO the company. You’re complete off the point here, sorry to say.
This is so annoying. I just had a Windows update, and had to decline Office and backups again. The worst one I've encountered is moving your home folder items to OneDrive without consent.
On the plus side of Windows added features, PowerToys has some nice tools!
For the audio device switching mentioned in the article: Try downloading Soundswitch: Fixed this for me. (Note: There's a scammy-looking software that also goes by this name; be careful!)
The "OOBE" post-update prompt has become incredibly toxic. The last one even started blocking Alt-Tab so you couldn't get out, and demanded a Microsoft account password which I never use so don't have memorized. And of course I couldn't get to my usual reminders. If I didn't have a mobile handy as backup (which I didn't, until recently) I'd basically be looking at a bricked PC.
This is about as dark-pattern-ey as it gets. Pretty sure I'm going to be making the jump to Linux for my next machine, or on this one if W10 becomes unusable after EoL.
I had a neighbor get completely locked out of a laptop after a Windows update due to this. They didn’t have the password or phone number to the Microsoft account. Of course, you can’t send a password reset email to the account you’re locked out of. I couldn’t figure out how to reverse it converting a local account into a cloud one.
There’s probably a way but I haven’t troubleshooted a Windows problem since 2008.
I have a bricked gaming laptop in my attic somewhere because of this. I still purchased another after, but I'm still vulnerable to the same problem because I don't have a MS account.
You can disable the post-update OOBE prompt in Settings.
Settings -> System -> Notifications -> Additional Settings
Ofc it's buried.
If it helps; I've never gotten an oobe from an update on win 11, though I have enabled auto login, and I had edited the install medium to add a local account.
I'm also in agreement that server-side, Windows 2000 server was peak.
XP/Window 7 were peak end-user OS's, once you got over the Fisher-Price look of XP.
The constraints you had in terms of user-UI were a massive advantage in terms of user-understanding. Now we're in a stupid era of the browser is the UI and everything is non-conformant with everything else in terms of looks/expectation/behaviour.
The version of MS-Office prior to the stupid ribbon-shit were also the peak versions. It's all been downhill since then with Windows ME and Windows 8 being exceptionally low points.
I'm about to shift to FreeBSD as my main driver as the Linux distribution fragmentation and wane in reliability/dependability and repeatability has given me the shits (how many apt-get equivalents are there now...?) I used to like Debian back in the day but now it and its derivatives (e.g. Ubuntu) give me the shits and Red-Hat and Fedora likewise, and Debian itself won't even install a working desktop. Apparently raising a bug for Fedora gets put into "Closed - not a bug" because IBM don't give a shit about quality anymore - even though the install resulted in an unbootable OS and I spent hours raising a proper bug report. Pop-OS was reasonable, but scaling where some apps have both big and little font sizes intermixed still mean its a clusterfuck of a kludge.
It's 2025 and apparently trying to mount network shares in fstab before the network interface is up isn't a bug. It's still not year of the desktop for Linux.
FWIW, I liked Apple in the 1980's - not so much since then.
I still appreciate all the contributions of those individuals out there is both GNU/Linux and the BSD'd trying to make the world a better place for themselves/others and sharing the results.
I have a Windows 7 PC that I decided to upgrade when the motherboard was about 10 years old. Expected it to just boot right up, motherboards haven't changed all that much. It would get to the part of the boot sequence where the window was coalescing on screen, and crash. A message flew by too quickly to see much less read, then totally black and unresponsive.
At that point I had a choice. I could buy a new version of Windows 11 for $200 which is much worse than the Windows 7 I gave up. Or I could switch to Linux. Hello Linux! There's one application I miss dearly that was Windows-only, but overall I'm a happy camper now.
I went from Haswell to Zen without any issues, other than cleaning out device manager.
i still miss office 2003 - esp as a power user of excel - it was so much faster/more reliably than the modern versions
65k rows was a feature, not a bug...
Yep. The slow-down it had in responsiveness once you got the thick green cell-highlight cursor was sooo noticeable I immediately though it was a downgrade.
I remember the original dev's for the Excel application used to pride themselves on its performance. I don't know what happened, except probably upper-management overrule.
You can get all that and more with any modern Linux distribution without the telemetry, surveillance and without a forced cloud-linked account trying to constantly upsell you something without having to worry about most malware. Begging Microsoft for scraps in 2025 is just weak. Enjoy the slavery.
I will get irritated with the flaws in Windows; The ones listed in the article and more. I will also get irritated with the flaws of Linux and its flavors! Some examples
Summarized: I feel like Linux has some deep philosophical design differences from what I look for in a computer. I'm not trying to administer anything; I just want to write and launch software.> Sudo nominally being for special/power use cases, but being required for many things
Many things are special/power use cases. Freedom is power, and with power comes responsibility.
> Doesn't feel like it's aimed at single-user PCs
It isn't. But what you think of as problems, I consider opportunities. Switching between multiple user accounts is useful for identity management.
> I'm not trying to administer anything; I just want to write and launch software.
If you test and package and distribute your software, you necessarily administrate the environments in which the tests and builds occur.
See my comment above, but I'm in the same boat. Linux definitely has problems that need to be solved, but unlike Windows its less likely to "change underneath me" once I've solved those problems to my satisfaction. In fact, a Windows update breaking my desktop is what facilitated my switch to Linux.
I'm also more willing to solve problems in Linux. Because I primarily write web software, I've also found "Linux debugging" skills more useful to learn than "Windows debugging skills" - the Linux skills tend to translate almost directly to my career. And it usually feels worthwhile to contribute good bug reports/fixes upstream; in stark contrast to Windows OS issues (and some of the more popular Windows software).
All of those are express non-issues for me. I feel bad for anyone shackled to Windows over such a minor gripe.
> Sudo nominally being for special/power use cases, but being required for many things
Just the fact that installing user software still requires sudo in most distributions is very irritating to me.
Hence the rise of `curl <something> | bash` I think
> Just the fact that installing user software still requires sudo in most distributions
The permissions are required because you will put the files in places that can be seen by all users of the system.
It's not different from UAC on Windows getting in the way of installing "for all users".
> The permissions are required because you will put the files in places that can be seen by all users of the system.
Why does software installed by a user puts stuff where it will be seen by all users?
> It's not different from UAC on Windows getting in the way of installing "for all users".
When I'm not installing "for all users" UAC isn't there, right?
Edit
For the purposes of installing software Linux is a single-user OS masquerading as multi-user.
> Why does software installed by a user puts stuff where it will be seen by all users?
Because the software package has its install paths predetermined. But other distribution methods absolutely are available. Flatpak works much more like what you're accustomed to; you can supply --user at the command line. Of course, this also means you get the bloat you're accustomed to; it still tries to share dependencies, but it's much harder in that world.
Also, because it is a good thing to think twice before installing any software.
> When I'm not installing "for all users" UAC isn't there, right?
Yes, and you can correspondingly put an Appimage in ~/.local/bin (or anywhere, if you don't care about having it on your PATH) without sudo, or run flatpak install --user without sudo.
> For the purposes of installing software Linux is a single-user OS masquerading as multi-user.
I am the only actual person who uses my system, but I made 7 user accounts (so far) and use at least 2 of them regularly. To say nothing of all the non-privileged users the system creates automatically, specifically so that certain background processes can run without violating privacy or corrupting anything important if they go haywire.
> Because the software package has its install paths predetermined
That really doesn't explain why this still is the case for the vast majority of distributions in 2025.
Or why these "predetermined paths" could not be transparently provided to the package and actually lead wherever.
> Flatpak works much more like what you're accustomed to
It's not "what I'm accustomed to". It's how it's supposed to work.
I, the user, am installing some software for me, myself, the user. I am not installing it for all users of the system. And that is the primary case for installing almost anything, especially in a user-facing system.
And yet...
> I am the only actual person who uses my system, but I made 7 user accounts (so far) and use at least 2 of them regularly. To say nothing of all the non-privileged users the system creates automatically
And... this somehow makes any of my points invalid?
> specifically so that certain background processes can run without violating privacy or corrupting anything important if they go haywire.
What does this have to do with a user installing software? Literally nothing. Besides implying that Linux is a single-user system masquerading as multi-user. Where the simple act of installing user software for a user can apparently break the entire system because it's always installed for all users.
If Windows of all systems could figure it out...
These seem very trivial, except the ABI (but only for people marketing software) and the last one, which is simply untrue.
If you absolutely refuse to handle your own system's security ("Enter a password to do something on my own computer? No thank you!"), you really should leave the management of your computer to Microsoft, and ask their permission personally to view your own files. They'll faceid you, consider the merits of your request, and decide how much access you should have to your own life.
In that way you can avoid sudo, or the concept of a multiuser computer entirely.
As for the last one, it is simply untrue. Linux supports as much as or more hardware than Windows. Windows will more likely support the latest greatest stuff because people don't release hardware specs. But once Linux catches up, it keeps that hardware compatibility longer, and can always be reverted back to by using an old kernel even a decade or two after a piece of hardware is dropped.
Linux has UX problems isn't quite a correct statement because Linux has many, fully flexible user interfaces that can be customized however you like.
It's possible that you are just experiencing friction moving to Linux because you are used to MS.
Easily writing and launching software is something Linux excels at.
Context: I've been using linux for 20 years, and do currently at my job. "Linux has many, fully flexible user interfaces that can be customized however you like." feels like a "you're holding it wrong", or "chose the wrong distro".
I don't want to go into the details, but I regularly experience UX problems in Ubuntu. Even things like reading/writing a USB port requires sudo, or editing system config files, which is wild to me. And adding a trailing newline to the config file in question will prevent your GUI from booting. Adding an item to the PATH is a combo of unintuitive, or filled with incorrect instructions (Including Go's home page CAO yesterday...).
Or, software I write can't be launched without using having the user go to the CLI, or creating a GUI-specific config file and placing it in a certain location. This leads to the line I hear regularly "You should publish your software on the distro-specific app store", or "You should only install software from the app store". Which immediately leads me to think I have a use-case mismatch.
> I don't want to go into the details, but I regularly experience UX problems in Ubuntu. Even things like reading/writing a USB port requires sudo, or editing system config files, which is wild to me. And adding a trailing newline to the config file in question will prevent your GUI from booting. Adding an item to the PATH is a combo of unintuitive, or filled with incorrect instructions (Including Go's home page CAO yesterday...).
None of this sounds like anything I've experienced, or heard described, in 3 years of using the Ubuntu-derived Mint.
> Or, software I write can't be launched without using having the user go to the CLI, or creating a GUI-specific config file and placing it in a certain location.
How exactly are you distributing it? If the problem is e.g. that your users download an AppImage and it isn't executable, they can most likely change the permissions from the GUI. I don't know what you mean about GUI-specific config files. I had thought that https://specifications.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/la... was pretty widely recognized.
Distros don't generally have "app stores" but rather package repositories, modulo branding. Publishing there isn't about making your launcher work; it's about letting the system handle dependencies and letting the distro maintainers patch (and build trust in) your code.
To launch an executable in windows, you double click the icon in the GUI. To launch the same programmed compiled for Linux, you can't always do that depending on the distro's GUI layer. What you do in Gnome, for example, is create a .Desktop file, and place it in a certain location. Then it will show in your quick launch.
> None of this sounds like anything I've experienced, or heard described, in 3 years of using the Ubuntu-derived Mint.
To be more specific on those anecdotes I mentioned due to having hit them recently:
The PATH (and other environment-vars) in Linux are shell-specific. You regularly read instructions (I saw this in Go's official instructions yesterday) indicating to use the EXPORT command. This only works until you reboot; you have to hand-edit a sudo-protected file (bashrc, .profile etc), and there's a learning curve to it. I don't remember the details, but I've screwed it up multiple times.> The PATH (and other environment-vars) in Linux are shell-specific.
PATH works the same way in Bash, sh, zsh etc. etc. Various shells do offer some additional ways to manipulate environment variables, but you can rely on things like export.
If you meant "specific to a shell process", then yes:
> You regularly read instructions (I saw this in Go's official instructions yesterday) indicating to use the EXPORT command. This only works until you reboot
See https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1158091 . The export command is essential. But of course settings that persist between sessions, between reboots etc. will be stored in a file. How else could it work? The point is that you aren't forced to use a GUI and you can examine the file as plain text and comprehend it.
> you have to hand-edit a sudo-protected file (bashrc, .profile etc), and there's a learning curve to it.
It's only root-owned (what I guess you mean by "sudo-protected") if it's system-wide. Per-user settings only require that user's rights, exactly as one would expect. That's not different from having to be an admin user on Windows to change system environment variables. Most of these config files are actually auto-run scripts, and understanding the system is an important part of familiarizing yourself with Linux as a developer. Trust me, Bash is much more pleasant to program in than Windows Batch files.
> I don't remember the details, but I've screwed it up multiple times.
If you want a wrapper for the process, it's not hard to make one if you can't already find one. It's strange to me how many developers don't seem to have any interest in building or customizing their own toolchain.
I suspect I understand our disconnect! I am looking at the GPOS as a tool for scheduling, driver interfaces, providing threads, and a GUI etc. I want it to get out of the way and let me run software. It's not something I'm intrinsically interested in, or want to tinker with, or config in a way that lets me break it.
We choose which things we want to tinker with and improve, and which we would like to use as-is for that and other goals. For me, the OS is in the latter category.
I'm afraid I don't understand why you see the things that you do as "tinkering". To me, automation is just what you do with a computer (and operating with plain text files makes that much easier than being forced through GUIs for everything), and before you can do that you need to figure out what you find annoying enough to automate.
Got it, but those are more Ubuntu specific qualms that you have, not arguments against Linux in general.
I use NixOS and I don't have UX problems because my UX is fully customized to work exactly how I want.
Plus, for every but of friction you may experience in Linix, the cons of Microsoft are much greater. They have no concern for your privacy, and exploit their workers and the environment.
Last time I used Microsoft (~8 years ago) I couldn't get that malware OS to stop forcefully suggesting and using their cloud services automatically.
There are many things that MS does that are just unacceptable.
Linux lacks designers and product managers; it's very programmer heavy, and this is the consequence.
> Linux lacks designers and product managers
I don't think that would be enough: adding those people to a team won't matter if the overall vision isn't there.
It needs, and I'm about to choke on my words here, a Steve Jobs at the helm saying "No, it needs to be like this".
Yes, I know that won't achieve perfection but there needs to be a coherent vision of what the OS is trying to be, or who it is aiming for.
Linux, right now is pure techie-driven. There isn't any vision at all! Every distro is subtly different and reflects the wants of the team that work on it.
It needs a company to take a distro and pick a direction, e.g. Linux for normies would have to remove almost all traces of command line, hard disk partitions, configs, package managers etc. All that shit would have to be hidden away, still in the background and available if wanted, but to use the OS it should not be a requirement.
Anyway, Linux is what it is :)
> It needs, and I'm about to choke on my words here, a Steve Jobs at the helm saying "No, it needs to be like this".
Several people at the Gnome Foundation seem to believe themselves to be this person.
The problem is, there are several such people, and they all seem to have terrible ideas on balance.
You're looking for MacOS. Linux is for people who want full control over their system and no Steve Jobs character telling them what they want.
> And adding a trailing newline to the config file in question will prevent your GUI from booting.
Now do the same in Windows. Messing with system files, without knowing what you are doing, is a recipe to disaster.
> Now do the same in Windows. Messing with system files, without knowing what you are doing, is a recipe to disaster.
I think I didn't communicate something clearly: My concern isn't that misediting a system file causes disaster. It's that you need to edit system files to do routine things.
On Windows, the solution is simple: USB/serial works without editing system files or requiring launching the program via CLI with sudo. You double-click the program in GUI, and it works.
I switched my primary desktop to Debian XFCE a year ago. Took me a while to "distro shop" and install NVIDIA drivers and set my keyboard shortcuts, but now that everything works it keeps chugging along with no drama. I turn my PC on, start streaming music, and hack on my little side project code. Lovely.
Most non-gamers probably only need a web browser, so I think a lot of people could get away with this (maybe with a distro that pre-installs drivers they need).
gamers on Linux can also enjoy the huge offering on Steam with about 70 to 80% compatibility
Unfortunately there's still no Linux distro (apart from MacOS) that is as frustration-free as Windows for your average (non-tech) user.
Microsoft is due righteous criticism as here, but let's be realistic about Linux as well.
Frustration free as Windows? You're kidding, right?
I recently showed a client of mine how Ubuntu works out of the box. No hours of rebooting, no ads in any menus, no online account requirement, no persistent anti-malware scanning, no UI elements from the 90s showing through. Drivers can be an issue, power usage perhaps, maybe sleep is annoying (especially on shit hardware) on laptops but apart from that I don't know how you can even compare the frustration from a recent Windows system with a modern Linux desktop.
Windows isn't frustration-free for non-tech users, though. At least in my social circle people constantly complain about Windows doing stupid things and changing all the time.
I helped some elderly friends and neighbours switch to Linux and they love it. Just a handful of programs, everything works, and nothing ever changes.
> Unfortunately there's still no Linux distro (apart from MacOS) that is as frustration-free as Windows for your average (non-tech) user
of course there is. its just a matter of familiarity. if you only know Linux Windows is very hard to use as well.
The counterpart to that is enjoy your next "Linux Evening". I've had two Linux evenings this week, until I finally decided to give up and restore a backup
The ARCH/UBUNTU/DEBIAN triad have been consecutively producing a bottom contender for your desktop 30 years in a row. Slavery comes in different forms.
They're doing the same thing with C#. The amount crap they have added to that language over the years is mind boggling - yet, we still don't have sum types which is the one thing that every C# developer I have worked with _really_ wants.
I have mixed views on this. We’ve gotten a lot of good with the bad. I think “C#, the Good Parts” would be a much thicker book than “JavaScript, the Good Parts”
I agree. Most things that got added are good.
I don’t like that there are 3+ ways of checking if a value is null tho.
There’s like 3+ ways to construct an object too.
Have you seen cpp?
That in itself is a critique of C#
Maybe, it's not my favourite language, but it seems basically fine. A new version drops, my five, ten year old code largely still just works and maybe there are improvements I have a use for in new code.
Some of the remaining warts are because it is wedded to the .NET CLR, so if the CLR says you can't do that then, too bad C# can't do that. It would not be practical to do anything about those.
Could you list the features you consider crap?
Here are some. I’m not saying these are all completely useless, but all of them should have taken a back seat to sum types.
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/cs...
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/cs...
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/cs...
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/cs...
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/cs...
Yeah, I'd like to see this too...
We're discussing Windows and all its ad-ware/invasive changes, and someone brings up C# without giving a real explanation or examples.
The last few C# versions brought primary constructors, collection expressions, records(!), tons of Span<T> improvements/support, etc. I just flicked through the list, and nothing that stuck out to me as being bloated.
The main bloat C# has is older stuff that you really shouldn't be using anymore (e.g. ArrayList, dynamic, Thread, delegate keyword, etc).
"Bloat" is just shorthand for "things I don't like"/"things I don't find useful". It has no other meaning. Avoid using it where possible.
> We're discussing Windows and all its ad-ware/invasive changes, and someone brings up C#
I brought up C# because the article discusses a Microsoft Windows design philosophy that I feel is also reflected in their approach to C#. It’s a Microsoft thing.
I agree with you that the examples you mention were great additions to the language! But I still think the C# design team has some seriously screwed up priorities. My theory is that this one year cycle they are on is hampering their ability to make changes (like sum types) that require more than a year of work.
Could you give some examples of the bloat they've added to C# that represent their "seriously screwed up priorities" aside from not adding Sum?
See the links I listed above. None of those features solved a language problem as large as the lack of sum types. It baffles me that they even spent time on them before providing a feature that is in such high demand (and has been for more than a decade).
I understand that you shouldn’t always give users what they ask for - but this is something that has picked up steam in other languages because it’s actually useful and makes code bases easier to maintain.
It's anything but a small language, but I wouldn't consider the stuff they're adding crap. They're useful features, but yes, this does have a price and makes the language larger.
There is value in a language with minimal syntax like Go, but it's not the only choice. C# is a pretty nice language overall, even with all the warts. But every language people actually use does have ugly stuff somewhere.
If you're creative about it you can make an interface for what is essentially a sum type.
All it takes is a method signature like:
It's a bit of a Yoneda embedding like way of forcing it in to the language, but hey it works.I think I'm missing something.
Presumably, you use a function like this to represent your sum type containing the value "avalue":
The problem I have is that when you create this function you have to reify the return type Z. You can't use this value in arbitrary contexts where the accessors need to return different types.How do you get this to work?
You want to return different types depending on the branch?
I mean you could return a sum type if you really need to.
Formally a sum type is just something that turns a pair of functions to Z into a single function from the sum type to Z. In fact it shouldn't do more than that.
Yep, this is exactly the approach we take. It works ok-ish, but it’s far from elegant. In our case ‘read’ is ‘Switch’. I think it’s a fairly common pattern in C# these days.
You can emulate sum types with classes and inheritance (N classes inherit from an empty base class), can't you?
It's very clunky
Yes, very clunky. One of the big issues with this approach is that switch expressions still require a default branch because there’s no way in C# to express a completely closed set. This makes future changes to the set (sum type) hazardous.
They continue to fiddle with design approaches to solve this. See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2025...
My partner uses Windows and I occasionally provide my amateurish tech support. One thing not mentioned in this article is the right click situation. I can't really describe what's wrong because I've not used Windows regularly in ten years. All I know is it is very confusing and basic tasks are hidden behind an extra click. I'm sure this is another mcrib situation but I wanted to mention it. There's probably a way to change it. But there are so many things like this and they usually come up when I'm trying to solve some other problem and don't have time to get distracted finding the setting. Is it so hard to make basic functionality the default and let users add on some of these features if they want to.
So when I got forced to use Win11 I went to look for a script that disable telemetry. Then I see the script offers the feature of using old behavior for right click menu...
I immediately started to think: but old behavior was so simple and obvious, what is there to change? The I right clicked to check. Immediately was hit with the wtf changes. Why? Why MS?
The purpose behind the new right-click menu is performance. The old right-click menu would load modules (typically 3rd party) that would cause significant lag on first-click [of a specific type of file].
This is not the right place go improve the performance. With so many useless bloatware and tools I don’t need, this is not the place where I want improved performance
I've said it many times in the past: the OS is a toolbox, just like a carpenters toolbox.
I use it to keep my apps (tools) in. I use the apps (hammer, saw, screwdriver etc.) to get a job done, then I put them away. The job of the OS isn't to recommend that I use Hammer v2.0 or to update my toolbox to the latest version.
The OS is, or should be, out of my way.
I agree with others here: Windows 2000 was peak OS for me!
I boot into my Windows partition for work-related activities often, and hear about the demise of Windows all the time.
Am I the only one who doesn't see it? I have all of the annoying stuff disabled, and basically have installed nothing besides the standard productivity/office tools. For me it's just a clean setup that stays out of my way. I'm running an 11 EAP build, and even then it doesn't crash, the software just works, and I never tinker with configuration or anything.
I trust people are in fact having issues, I just can't relate. Maybe it's how I'm using it.
It’s your install. You aren’t running a consumer machine with all the garbage and bloat ware installed. My wife and I had personal laptops the same hardware level. Mine had a clean windows 10 install I paid some guy to do. Hers wasn’t. Hers became unusable after a year. My kid still uses mine several years later.
> I paid some guy to do
Go to https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
Download ISO
Use RuFus (if you are lazy) or manually write it a thumb drive or even just unpack it on your primary drive, launch install.
Here, your fresh and clean (almost, some stuff would get in through the WU if you are running a branded machine) install. 3
Well, built in feature of Reset PC will even download fresh iso for you and will boot in fresh install. Optionally you may ask to keep your files too.
> I have all of the annoying stuff disabled
How long did it take you to disable everything, and in you many places? Are you sure you've disabled everything, or just learned to live with it (e.g. Win+S search defaults to first searching the internet, and only then showing local results)
I will be honest since im with parent here, it took me literally 15m to figure everything out when I reinstalled this week. I just do all the nos on oob, once I get to desktop I uninstall OneDrive (via control panel, etc..), go to settings, activate windows -> disable stuff that I dont want -> customize start menu to my liking (settings button near power button, left-aligned, etc..) -> open start menu and right click uninstall all the apps (whatsapp, netflix, outlook, etc..) -> then go to explorer and change the defaults to my preferences and lastly open gpedit and disable all the AI and cloud search stuff under administrative templates (they are all there and have clean descriptions!!).
> they are all there and have clean descriptions
Key word: all there.
There ate hundreds of templates in several categories.
It's good when you know all the places you have to turn shit off, as it's spread all over the place. It took me over a week and furious googling
So you documented that work and made it public for the rest of us, right?
Were we collectively using the same setup that turned all this stuff off — and I’m talking a real project to cleanup Windows installations — we’d be in a better spot. Unfortunately people want to profit from doing so, so nah we don’t really do that.
O&O shutup seems to take on a lot of this AND its free! This is what I usually recommend.
I can make the same complaint about any Linux desktop environment.
But to answer your question, about 45 seconds with https://github.com/Raphire/Win11Debloat
> or just learned to live with it
If I’ve learned to live with it it’s not annoying stuff anymore.
In all Linux desktop environments, you have to spend a bunch of time cleaning out its adware, surveillance, work around its desire to use a remote password to access your local computer, and somehow suppress its desire to move your local files to the cloud?
This is not actually true in any way. When you install Debian, or most distros, you spend no time on this. If Ubuntu or Firefox slips something in that looks anything like an ad or a necessary cloud or telemetry, you scream it to the hills.
edit: if you consider your sibling replies, the time that it takes for a very technical person to get their Windows system usable is between 15 minutes and a week, and it involves dozens of steps.
> In all Linux desktop environments, you have to spend a bunch of time cleaning out its adware, surveillance, work around its desire to use a remote password to access your local computer, and somehow suppress its desire to move your local files to the cloud?
Hold on a second, that’s not what I said. I said that Linux environments have “annoying stuff”. Firefox has been “slipping in” stuff for the past decade, Ubuntu and gentoo have terminal ads, Debian required extra steps to get my hardware working, and arch is the epitome of “I will never be done tweaking stuff”
Not the parent, but last year I moved on to Win11 on a new laptop.
It took... about a week at worst, I think.
Just run the bundled distribution to look how it goes, note the things you need to throw out, do a clean install (see my other comment in this thread), apply the tweaks.
The longest one was to disable the effing F23 (aka Copilot) key, PowerToys weren't helping so I used the trusted SharpKeys, which I already use for 10+ years to remap idiotic PrtSc to ContextMenu on ThinkPads.
Sure, I'm not your average computer illiterate Joe, but if we are talking about a comparison with a typical *nix distribution... like in a sibling comment there is "Not everyone knows how to do that" about tweaking, but the same applies to *nix too.
I think it took me a week, too, until I ran into the windows debloater in a sibling comment: https://github.com/Raphire/Win11Debloat
We need to bring back the Windows.CoRe.RePack.iso torrents
I worry that things like ads in the start menu/search, OneDrive/Xbox/Office nags etc will morph into full enshittification, and ads you can't get rid of. It hasn't happened to an intolerable degree yet, but seems to be gradually getting worse.
> I have all of the annoying stuff disabled, and basically have installed nothing besides the standard productivity/office tools.
Not everyone knows how to do that
I love that the writer complains about things Microsoft keeps adding that we don't need, and then goes on to recommend more things we don't need, lol
I had been using Windows only for gaming in recent years, but it’s not even good for that anymore. If you run any bloat-removal tool, a bunch of things stop working — even internet connectivity.
So I went through a period of distro hopping and ended up choosing the distro I used to make the most memes about: Arch. Very solid, always on the latest drivers and kernel, everything works out of the box, and I can play pretty much any game without issues. I’d recommend it 10/10.
To be fair, I did run into one problem: in the Red Dead Redemption remake, the game would freeze on the initial screen, but that got resolved.
Beyond the headline, this is an interesting article listing ideas for useful features people might want.
Their cloud sign in processes just to use the f*ing OS make me want to tear my hair out.
There is a post on reddit explaining this in detail, try googling it or I'll link it if I can find it.
Basically set you region to Ireland while installing the OS and edge can be removed, start menu bing search can be removed, ai crap and all ads can be removed.
Microsoft adds stuff "we" don't need to everything. Think about the ribbons of tools available in Office -- Excel and Word in particular have features for pretty much anything you can think of. I'm not arguing it's not a valid choice -- I'm sure someone needs all those features. But for me, personally, I prefer products that do a smaller set of things simply and perfectly, as opposed to products that do All The Things somewhat well. Even if it does everything very well, having all those extra features in the way makes it harder to get the few things I want to do harder.
The title is misleading. It should be "Microsoft keeps adding crap into Windows that no one would ever want."
If Microsoft wanted to fix Windows it would be an easy task. Step 1: Delete everything added since Windows 7. Step 2: Delete all dotnet crap. Step 3: Make the APIs good by deleting almost everything and making new plain C89 APIs. Step 4: Realize we need a new operating system and delete all of Windows and start over.
My very cynical hypothesis: the time for mainstream or mainstream-adjacent tech doing anything actually useful for us is ending or over (if such a time ever existed). It's mostly rent seeking garbage now as tech matures and companies get greedy. Too much software is utter trash and is shoved in our face to display ads, collect data, or sell something. Hardware is increasingly locked down into crap-ridden environments. I mean you can barely even buy a device and boot the OS without some corporation like Microsoft trying to shoehorn you into 20 useless features to suck the joy from your life while their wallet gets fat. Features for the sake of features, churn the sake of churn - it's an increasingly sickening rot all the way down. Just give us a simple computer that does what we need. Not everything needs to be an infinite revenue source.
I recently built a new PC and faced the dilemma of paying Microsoft for their experience or rolling the dice with Linux (nothing to lose). I've been running Kubuntu and while not perfect it certainly works well enough.
The sad part is that I'd gladly pay Microsoft double what they currently charge for something that basically works like Windows 7 did. It's like a theme park where I pay admission for the privilege to be upsold various add-ons. So now I just don't pay them anything.
The other day my Windows locked behind an advertisement for Microsoft's backup services, trying to trick me into surrendering all my private data to their servers.
They even added a typical dark pattern that on clicking "No" another "But... We recommend it, are you sure?" appeared.
What a disgrace to push such an ad on people's computers. This abusive behavior is their company culture.
Regarding point 9, there is an audio device switcher in the pop-up panel you get when you click the speaker icon
The whole UI feels like it was thrown together by 15 different organisations.
I work in the networking space, and regularly tweak the IP settings to do my job.
Over the last 25 years, I have been utterly confounded as the number of clicks it takes to get from the Desktop to changing an IP address or DNS setting seemed to jump from 2 or 3 to something like 5 or 6 with all these intermediate settings pages that don't appear to serve any real purpose.
Just show me my damn adapters and let me configure them!
Win 11 seems to be moving back in the right direction, but I switched my daily driver long ago and won't be coming back.
7 is really good. I do something similar. I'm forced to use a windows laptop supplied by a client to connect to their network (and I shouldn't connect between my home devices and it). So I'm often working on Windows.
I tend to have (on two monitors): Built in monitor, any desktop- MŚ teams, Outlook and Notepad.
Second (4K) monitor, Desktop 1-tmux in WSL. Desktop 2-Web browsers Desktop 3-spare Desktop 4-My Ide (10+ Windows if vscode with WSL plugin) Desktop 5-Excel,Word etc.
AutoHotKey let's me change between desktops with win+X key (where X is a number) and moving an app to a specific desktop is only win+shift+X away.
I've been using a similar setup on Linux for many years, except outlook/teams is replaced by my Cctv window. The only problem is on Linux if you have focus let's say in desktop 1 monitor 2 (tmux in alactity), you them do win+2 to go to screen 2 into a browser(still monitor 2), you then press win+2 hoping to go back to desktop 1 alacritty... Your focus ends up on monitor 1 in the Cctv window.
This never happens on Windows. When I go back to a desktop X the focus stays with where I've left it.
>> Microsoft keeps adding stuff into Windows we don't want
Of course they are.
Copilot and Recall are not what most users want, but they are what Microsoft wants:
https://youtu.be/Ag1AKIl_2GM?t=57
I just wish they sold windows professional. Like an actual Windows professional that has no ads because you paid extra money. You can buy a Microsoft surface device and Windows is still filled with adware because there’s no professional version of Windows.
I suppose it's not exactly what you're looking for, but note that you can literally buy Windows 11 Pro -
https://www.microsoft.com/en-ie/d/windows-11-pro/dg7gmgf0d8h...
>> that has no ads because you paid extra money
Windows 11 Pro still has ads, telemetry, and all the other misfeatures that professionals can do without.
Yes I’ve been aware of that for twenty five years.
That has been a thing since at least Windows 2000 Professional... I don't know the exact crapware situation, but at least with pro you have access to group policies, and then you can usually disable the crap. (still ridiculous)
but it does show how the suggestion for a more expensive version of a thing without ads is niche at best, since even the people complaining about it aren't aware when it does exist.
OneDrive is so persistent that on locked down systems where the whole concept is that the machine can only take exams, there's still a problem where Microsoft are like "Oh, do you want OneDrive?". No. Fucking no. They can't have OneDrive, they aren't entitled to OneDrive, and you couldn't install OneDrive if they said "Yes". Fuck off.
Windows 7 was last descent Windows version.
Here's a great Debloat script for installing a clean and privacy-preserving win 11 https://github.com/Raphire/Win11Debloat
With all the crap taken out Windows 11 is a pleasant os experience for me.
I know this upsets some HN people (for some reason), but all these things are possible with linux.
Edit: lol, I got down voted. Do you think these things are not possible on linux?
Observations like "I know this upsets some HN people (for some reason)" and "lol, I got down voted" are not productive meta commentary. Writing like this just annoys readers and highlights the lack of substance in the rest of the comment.
I'm pointing out that Hacker news has a lot of members that get very upset if you suggest using Linux when they complain about Windows. I think meta commentary about the platform is valid, especially since the platform is just posts and comments.
That meta commentary was part of the substance of my comment. And it relates to the article.
To be more specific, I feel strongly against people who defend Microsoft, and their massively immoral actions like their military ties, and invasion of privacy.
I think these people defend Microsoft largely because they are used to it, therefore have a bias towards it, and because they feel attacked when linux users point out that they are supporting an evil megacorporation.
It's sort of like how members of one religion often feel attacked by the mere existence of people who follow other religions, or no religion at all.
I think that people with sufficient technical capability shouldn't support microsoft, and should use open source software.
Yes, I understand all of that (although I don't have all the same ethical or moral compunctions that you do). I still think that if/when you seek to engage with that audience, you should still follow community norms.
One annoying thing about linux are drivers. They often don't work out of the box. E.g. fingerprint reader, screen brightness, audio too low. I tried multiple distros on multiple laptops, there is almost always some fiddling needed.
On the other hand corp forced me to move from pc to mac, hardware is awesome but I need to get used to software (keyboard shortcuts), it looks and feels like linux with drivers that actually work (I know it technically it's not linux, I'm just saying that it feels like it, probably due to history of unix/bsd/linux).
Speak for yourself. When I plug in an Nvidia GPU, MacOS plugs its ears and pretends that working compute drivers don't exist. On Linux it's plug-n-play.
Same with a Wacom tablet, ext4-formatted drive, Xbox/Nintendo controllers, DAC software, Sony LDAC headphones... much of Linux' driver support is best-in-class. It just depends on what you own (like all OSes).
A lot of this works fine on KDE, but Linux and BSDs provides multiple desktop environments and people can pick what they like. MS cannot really do this as it relies on being the standard GUI everyone knows. Even things like the taskbar being in the "wrong" place confuses a significant proportion of people.
As for stuff "we" do not need, who is "we"? MS needs the stuff, which really means some decision maker within MS is persuaded it is needed, and their incentives do align all the well with those of users.
There are ways to get rid of all the nonsense by uninstalling it via Powershell or by blocking it via GPO/Registry. But the main issue here is that Microsoft changes the settings every now and then and all of a sudden, something that you considered disabled is fully enabled again.
Other issue is that some things just cannot be uninstalled. Because of the GDPR I've seen companies run AppLocker & Co. to block Microsoft sh*t from running that they couldn't get a hold of otherwise.
I can see ReactOS getting a lot more developers and a huge budget if this goes on...
Here's what Windows needs:
When a user opens a 2nd file explorer, it should open next to the existing one, not on top of it.
They really lost the plot with Copilot, stuffing it into every Microsoft app possible.
I agree with this article except for this request,
> Make audio device switching easy
> One of the biggest unresolved hassles in Windows 11 is how difficult it is to switch audio output and input devices at the OS level. It seems like almost every day I have a problem where I want to listen to audio on my desktop speaker, but instead the sound starts coming out of my USB headset. A good chunk of the time, my computer also wants to send audio out of my monitors, which have 3.5mm audio jacks, but nothing is connected to them.
They (finally!) added this in Windows 11, and it's one of my favourite quality of life improvements. Ctrl + Win + V.
Windows 7 was last descent Windows version
Maybe this'll be the year everyone moves to Linux!
I'm pretty sure your comment was sarcastic, but I'll add the anecdote that this is the year I moved to Linux. I've running Linux Mint as my main driver for a few months. For decades I've used Linux on servers or on an extra laptop or as a second OS to boot into as a curiosity.
I was capable enough to be professionally effective with Linux but I stayed on Windows because it was the path of least resistance. I had decades of conditioning and habits built around how Windows worked. Everything was installed and configured and setup and familiar. So I just accepted the nuisance of the injected ads and data harvesting and bloatware because it was the path of least resistance. But despite all that, I finally had enough of Microsoft's shenanigans and resolved I was done.
I used ChatGPT to successfully navigate some of the more esoteric errors, installation headaches, and software setup stumbles I've encountered getting Linux set up. No Wine or VMs either, RhythmBox and LibreOffice and MakeMKV and Steam all work great on Linux. If I need Office I've got the Office web apps. PC game support has gradually improved on Linux. The availability of emulators and Emulation Station means I don't miss my extensive LaunchBox setup that sits on my Windows partition. The end result is a setup that has kept me out of my Windows partition for months at a time.
I don't really care who wins, whatever that means, but Linux is polished and fantastic and performant. I wish I'd made the jump a decade ago.
> I've running Linux Mint as my main driver for a few months.... I used ChatGPT to successfully navigate some of the more esoteric errors, installation headaches, and software setup stumbles I've encountered getting Linux set up.
Out of interest, any specific issues that stand out in your memory?
Also, you're aware of https://forums.linuxmint.com/, yes?
There were some odds and ends around partition management that made me hesitate. ChatGPT helped me distill what I wanted to do into a plan that made sense to me.
In terms of issues, getting certain mounts to persist took some time. I had jump back into Windows and change some settings to get Windows to give up control.
I tried to install a few packages, like Emulation Station, that presented some headaches but I worked through it.
I tried installing SpaceDrive and it was a slog that eventually went nowhere. It took a lot of effort to get it compiled and running and then it didn't really work, so I gave up. It's alpha software, but given the press (and investment) it's received I expected a smoother experience.
Installing MakeMKV took a small bit of gymnastics to install, but once it was installed it worked great. Setting up backups on Mint didn’t behave as I expected at first, but I figured it out.
I didn’t really have any issues, per se, with Mint. It was a breeze. I’m sure the forums are great, but GPT hit enough that it wasn't too terrible when it missed. And it has a lot less latency than searching a forum or posting and waiting for responses.
It took me hours with Windows 10 and PowerShell to scrub all the crap out of the default OS install. I don’t even want to know what that process would be with 11.
Stop complaining and just use Linux.
Or just, stop complaining. Microsoft and Apple don't listen, so at least save your breath if you won't switch to anything else.
I'd like to opt out of the post-consent world but this is the post-consent world after all.
Basically GM and Ford as well.
One colleague started installing the unofficial Tiny11 "edition" of Windows 11 on some work computers, especially VMs.
I don't know how much was trimmed down but ads are gone and reportedly it has better performance.
Ok, total shower thought but what if the likes of Dell, HP, Lenovo, Samsung, Acer, Asus etc. got together and said "Guys, let's form a consortium to create a new OS (based on Linux, of course) to break the Microsoft hold".
Would it work? Would there be demand?
Hell, I'll run it for them: I just want Windows 2000 with some security fixes :-)
Just a crazy thought but hey, you never know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Probably not, based upon the extent to which enterprises have been integrated with Windows. Enterprises use a lot of functionality which is not really visible to the casual user. All that functionality would need to be retrofitted into Linux and we get right back into the whole bloat cycle again.
I have actively been trying to move out from Windows but I can't find a good replacement. MacOS has honestly been the only best alternative so far but I can't play games there.
Please, just point to a good Windows alternative and I'll leave, Microsoft can play these stupid games because they know their marketshare. We are stuck with them.
And that we do not want.
"The operating system's corporate parent isn't a good listener either, festooning the OS with useless features no one asked for."
Well, someone inside the company definitely asked for them. Their Microsoft lackeys then delivered the "new features", as they always do.
"In recent years, we've seen Redmond push for useless local AI features, in a bid to sell everyone Copilot+ PCs that they don't need."
Microsoft has been selling computer users on "features" they don't need since at least the 1990s.
"The house Bill Gates built has turned Windows into a piece of spyware, insisting that you sign in with a Microsoft account so it can gather more data about you, and cajoling you to run Recall, which takes snapshots of your sensitive personal information."
Wager: Thus author is not switching away from Windows. Ever. He will jump through any hoop. What choice does he have. None. He may even be paid to keep using it
Microsoft collects vast amounts of data both from and about computer users, including computer user behaviour, and yet the author claims Microsoft "isn't a good listener". I beg to differ.
With all the data it collects why would Microsoft ever need to "listen" to tech journalists' opinions, including ones who purport to speak for other computer users.
The company has ample data about what computer users are willing to endure. It is most certainly "listening", i.e., monitoring. It began acquiring companies just to get more data. It's collecting vast amounts of data _from a variety of sources_ about computer users every second.
Over thirty years of complaining about Microsoft Windows, and to what end. Windows users generally cannot and do not switch to another OS. Truthfully, very few complain or request features. Those who do are a "vocal minority". There used to be entire websites such as annoyances.org devoted to complaints about Windows. Not anymore.
Perhaps the true goal of "articles" such as this is not to obtain changes to Windows (probability: almost zero) but to garner an audience of frustrated Windows users and boost online ads revenue. With onlilne ads as the driving incentive, the author and Redmond are part of the same problem.
"If you were to go back in time to the DOS era and tell people staring at their blue WordPerfect 5.1 screens that they could move text, images, videos, or even files between applications with a couple of keystrokes, they'd be blown away."
For me, the solution to clipboards in VGA textmode (not "terminal") was and still is tmux buffers
Combined with UNIX pipes this is more powerful and flexible than anything possible using Windows
"2. Two or three clocks in the Taskbar
3. Add a fourth modifier key
4. Allow remapping of all keyboard shortcuts
5. Bring back the movable, resizable taskbar
6. Firewall for audio
7. Pin apps to specific screens
8. Program groups launch multiple, related apps at once
9. Make audio device switching easy
10. Cut the Microsoft-induced distractions"
I have none of these problems using a UNIX-like OS but let's assume that's irrelevant
The relevant difference is that if there is something I do not like in the UNIX-like OS, I can edit the source and recompile
Not possible with Windows; the author is stuck with whatever Microsoft decides to do next
Futile appeals to Redmond may continue for another three decades
What we need is to remove Windows.
Well, as much as I like to join in taking a dump on Microsoft, this sort of thing is inevitable, in any OS, any software, any product:
The longer a product goes, the more features it gets (or loses) that some people want, some people don't.
It would be nice to have an easy to modify checklist of what stuff you want to keep/remove on a default installation.
I think the current state of iOS is pretty good in regards to that: You get a somewhat-sane default pack out of the box, and you can remove crap like Freeform and Journal (which should have been part of Notes to begin with) and install other Apple apps from the App Store if you need em.
AI in notepad is not something that should be in an OS. Any OS. The os is supposed to be there to sit between your applications and your hardware. It's supposed to offer some sort of interface for you to operate your machine.
Having arbitrary features that connect to arbitrary web-services which could extremely easily be an optional application is not fine.
> The os is supposed to …
That ship has long sailed my good sir/sirette.
It has only sailed because we lack competition in the OS space. Any competent competitor could eat MS' lunch by now, if not for the decades of entrenchment that Windows has had.
It's not if old features get removed as others are added, or someone is there to put their foot down. I don't feel this problem in Apple products.
But it is an easy trap to fall into.