Ask HN: What is Windows 11 under the hood? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: What is Windows 11 under the hood?

10 pointsPhileosopher19 comments

I know this may be a premature hope, but I sincerely wish Windows would eventually become a Unix-like already, just to make the consumer PC world more streamlined. WSL was a good step, and now I'm getting an Android-like Play-But-Amazon Store vibe.

So, does anyone have any hard facts about this rollover? I have so many questions:

- Are Windows services still going to be the elaborate mechanism they've always been, or is this going to merge into being like Linux as well?

- What about the folder tree structure? Will it still be Windows-like (ProgramFiles+Windows+Users) or the Linux style?

- Are we expecting any Win8 UX abominations where things aren't where the users expect, or is this going to go like WinME-from-98 back in the day where it's functionally similar but the insides are different?

- How backwards-compatible will this be? Can I still run x86 Win98-era stuff, or will this have to become another VM experience? For that matter, is there any baked-in VM-like capability now for Home edition yet (i.e., like Wine)?

- I'm sure I'm missing some questions, so please ask them as well.

EDIT: first post, forgot to parse bullets

>Are Windows services still going to be the elaborate mechanism they've always been

I quite like the way Windows services work, it's a well defined API and I've always been able to do what I needed. Most importantly it has been consistent for twenty five years now.

>I sincerely wish Windows would eventually become a Unix-like already

Why? Unix is rather flawed. We've learnt a great deal in the last 30 years, we can do better rather than get stuck on an ancient standard.

I’m with you here. The average consumer doesn’t want a Unix structure. They just want office and chrome in a familiar package. Windows 11 has nailed the user experience so far and works fantastic for me (power user) as well as my wife (non-technical) so I’d have to say they’re on the right track.

I'm guessing macOS which is a certified Unix is working fine for average users and works even better for developers.

I'm not sure if Unix is the ancient one or that Windows is the ancient one who can't let go of backward compatibilities and is stuck with all the legacy parts all over to drag its innovation for decades.

Isn't docker storage horribly slow on MacOS?

Why is it flawed?

A very partial list:

* One of the main Unix innovations was piping between processes. Yet piping used text-based interface. Today we has the resources and knowledge to make a much more structured interface. Attempts to do this on shell level exist but are clunky and not sufficiently systemic (you end up having to reimplement all of coreutils, at which point you end up with something like 50% of features and not supporting all userland). Maybe if we had a higher level interface...

* Other environments showed you can have much more mobility between your local resources and network resources (e.g. VMS clustering, Erlang's VM). Imagine running a process elsewhere and have it communicate seamlessly with your processes, and being able to move it seamlessly as well.

* Few guarantees on file writing/data preservation. Making a program which is actually reliable is not trivial at all.

* The permission model is arguably too simple (while Windows permissions are too complex). Should we find a middle ground?

* There's room for a less monolithic kernel design. (I know what Linus thinks of it - well, if you define any efficient microkernel interface as 'not a microkernel' of course you win by default).

Linux can of course eventually evolve towards this, but it would be far from its Unix heritage if it does.

Windows 11 is just reskinned Windows 10.

I don't get why this is such a revelation. Windows 11 is a modified and reskinned Windows 10, which is a modified and reskinned Windows 8, which is a modified and reskinned Windows 7 which is a modified and reskinned Windows Vista which is a modified and reskinned Windows XP.

This isn't news, if you look through any beta release of Windows you'll know that they all start off looking identical to their predecessors, mainly because they share a lot of code.

Until Microsoft actually starts breaking backward compatibility on a large scale, this is by definition true.

This doesn't make any sense you don't need to break compatibility in order for Windows to not be Windows 10 anymore. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? I can still run Visual Basic 6 on Windows 11... But for some reason by your logic that means that it's still Windows 10? Which is still Windows 8.1 which is still Windows 8 which is still Windows 7 which is still Windows Vista which is still Windows XP which is still Windows me and I could just keep going every Windows is every Windows just reskinned right? Does it have to not be NT anymore for it to not be Windows 10 anymore?

Yes.

Windows 10 of today is just a reskinned Windows 10 from when it launched. This statement bears no meaning considering the considerable changes over time that happened.

Really?? That's...depressing...

Why?

The only surface-level changes seem to be:

- Rounded corners

- The start menu is centered now

- A few new wallpapers

- Some things like calc.exe have a new skin

I'm still not certain what the Unique Selling Point of Windows 11 is. They haven't stressed what it is in their marketing. Guess I'll just download a Windows11 ISO and find out

Since MS no longer charges for Windows upgrades they don't have to have a selling point.

Built-in ms teams

Why do you think they would throw away years of work to start over?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com