Can’t imagine how these Windows engineers feel about the enshitification of their baby. So much time invested into it - must be hard to see it taking this current trajectory.
I'm pretty sure XP came with a digital app store right at the top of the redesigned Start menu, Windows Media Player had ten music stores integrated all selling DRM'd WMA files...
The system requirements especially, must have created a lot of work right down into the kernel team.
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/windows-xp-professional... "Windows Catalog"
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20011113052730/http://www.micros...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20020409123842/http://www.micros...
Yeat another thing where Microsoft was ahead of the curve, nowadays we get Electron (aka Chrome) all over the place.
People even buy laptops where the browser turned into the OS!
Like, rhetorical dude from 2002, you're mad that Windows XP will not let you remove Internet Explorer easily and that it requires online or phone activation to work? Let me tell you about Windows 11...
Apologies. This was me. Pretty much all 10. Most of them were just white-labels of the same code. Believe me, I hated doing it. MS didn't want to do the right thing and vertically-integrate everything like Apple was doing, which was the better solution as then you owned the entire user experience from end-to-end.
We know how that story ended.
I think people are forgetting how unreliable Windows was in its early days. If you were doing anything complex (programming, editing pictures, ...) Windows couldn't run for 2 hours without crashing every so often.
If anything, the core of the Windows operating system has only gotten better with time. Yes, they keep adding fluff to the desktop environment but that doesn't take away the progress they have made in stablizing their core operating system.
Not to mention being as easy to attack as a house made of butter.
It's arguably a bit shit from a business perspective, but has no real impact on power-users day to day.
It's also an uphill battle against the ever encroaching Microsoft Edge bullshit; every time you remove part of the bullshit, Microsoft comes out with an update that adds more.
If you're stuck with Windows I'd consider the safe defaults for ShutUp1x as essential but you do need to read the notes for every setting you enable, which may require some Googling so you understand what you're doing.
I`m really curious, which version of Windows you mean?
Because I don't remember this on win 3.11, win XP, win 95, etc. etc. Of course there sometimes HW/drivers issue, sometime some programs corrupt system files, etc. etc. But crashing every so often.. thats strange.
Ran out of memory? BAM. An official driver from Intel or nVidia or ATI did something slightly off-time because silicon decided to wait a clock for something, BAM. You had a professional capture card with high bandwidth for that time, and you wanted to capture a video, BAM.
A blue screen because of a spinlock access violation, a Windows bundled driver, or any high-end software was common back in these days.
This is why you can tell if people grew up in that era, you have muscle memeoy of CRTL + S every few minutes burned into your soul.
I'm honestly afraid that my child will born with it and do that pinky-midfinger combo on air like playing air guitar on day 1.
NT solved that problem by not allowing a lot of that nonsense, breaking code in the process. This incompatibility is the reason new Windows 95/98 PCs are produced until this day (https://nixsys.com/legacy-computers/windows-95-computers, https://nixsys.com/legacy-computers/windows-98-computers): back in the Win9x days, programming your computer like you would program a microcontroller today was quite a reasonable thing to do for certain applications, like controlling production lines.
There is the uptime overflow bug to deal with, but a monthly reboot is easier than reverse engineering and porting control software.
That sounds like a Windows 3.1, where applications could easily take down the operating system. Windows 9x wasn't quite as bad. If I recall correctly, properly written applications could not take down the operating system though drivers certainly could. That said, there were certainly ways for developers to break the rules since there was little (if any enforcement) so some applications did take down the operating system. With the Windows NT series, there was sufficient isolation and enforcement of that isolation, that it was very reliable. Drivers could be an issue, as with bugs in Microsoft's code, but that was nothing in comparison to contemporary versions of 3.1 and 9x.
On the whole, I don't think it is reasonable to blame Microsoft for the reliability of their operating system. There were certainly design issues that resulted in it being unreliable, especially when running third-party code. On the other hand, the operating system was basically an evolution of a product line that started on the 8088 with very limited memory (I'm speaking of PC-DOS here) and a great degree of compatibility had to be maintained. Keep in mind, the computer industry did not work at the same pace: features had to wait until processors incorporated them, processor adoption had to wait for manufacturers to build them into their systems, and then consumers buy those systems in sufficient numbers. For example: the 286 was introduced in early 1982, but the IBM PC AT did not come out for another 2.5 years. Microsoft was also limited by the hardware their customers owned, even when it supported particular features. Life is much harder when you cannot throw memory at the problem because people had 2 or 4 or 8 MB of RAM.
On the other hand, Windows NT was a completely different product. There was much less concern over compatibility. There was much more intent to throw away baggage to create a modern (for the time) operating system. It did not crash every two hours.
1. budget devices from OEMs that cut corners at every cost
2. capacitor plague with merchants unable to guarantee good capacitors from any source
Windows, despite its legitimately annoying monetization strategy, has absolutely done the opposite - it does More Stuff every release, and the stuff it did before largely still works.
I wouldn't say "doing more" is better. I'd be happy if it did a lot less. I don't care about most of the big new features in windows. I'd be a lot more happy they'd rework their old antiquated stuff that keeps making problems (drivers, registry, focus handling, etc. etc.).
> Apple is making its desktop OS more "secure" (read: convoluted and does less stuff)
What is apple really making less useful with time? For me I really like many of the new features. The only reason I stick to windows is that gamging is still horrible on macOS.
There are two levels of features here (maybe three) that we should consider:
- There are consumer facing features, the stuff pushed by marketing departments since it will grab the attention of customers and (perhaps) make it more desirable for customers. A lot of this is targeted towards specific groups of users, while being less useful to others, and goes out of fashion very quickly (assuming it ever went into fashion).
- There is the infrastructure. This stuff is harder to sell users on because relatively few people care about the details. It includes everything from exposing functionality to developers to improving performance and security. Sometimes it turns out this functionality is only of interested to a limited subset of developers. Sometimes it retrospectively seen as a problem that needs to be addressed. Either way it is very difficult to alter or remove because other software depends upon it. (Heck, even internal software depends upon it. While they may have the means to update internal software, that doesn't mean they have the resources to.)
I'm tempted to split the second category into two, but the net effect is the same so we may as well keep it simple.
As for the Apple thing, well, Apple has a more focused market. Choosing Apple also tends to be a conscious decision, while choosing Windows tends to be more a default position. For those reasons, I have no doubt that macOS is a better OS in the eyes of its users than Windows is in the eyes of its users.
Do you have some examples of how macOS is doing less / capable of less today, than say 1 or 2 or 3 releases ago?
Another would be fragmenting the settings between the control panel and the new settings menu. It does more stuff (you have twice as many settings apps!) but it is less useful, because you are less likely to find the setting you are liking for.
Another example of doing more and becoming less useful is requiring a TPM for Windows 11. My security should be my decision. Not letting one install Windows obviously makes Windows less useful than if it could be installed.
In general (ie, not a Windows specific issue) ever growing hardware requirements makes the software less useful over time, as it can only run on a smaller and smaller subset of hardware. As software gets better, it should run on more hardware than it did before. Not less. Windows will simply not run on hardware from 15-20 years ago that is otherwise fully functional. That means it is less useful than it was before.
I agree there are definitely shitty chunks Windows, but there are still some very solid foundations there to this day.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/working-through-things...
AFAIK it is possible to do this on Linux (either through mprotect + SIGSEGV or userfaultfd) but it's slow. But there's a work-in-progress patch that the Collabora folks (probably on a contract from Valve if I'd had to guess, as some games do use this) are working on which will add a new fast way of doing this.
Even in current form, userfaultfd is useful for GC, so Linux's lack of the feature in 2015 was unfortunate. Android 13 added a new GC taking advantage of userfaultfd: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2022/08/android-13....
> A new garbage collector based on the Linux kernel feature userfaultfd is coming to ART on Android 13... The new garbage collector... leading to as much as ~10% reduction in compiled code size.
The nice thing about COM is that it provides a well-defined, C-based ABI for calling object-oriented interfaces; if your language has a FFI that supports C, then you can call COM objects.
I’m a big believer that COM bindings for any language with automatic memory management should not expose refcounts directly to the programmer (at least in 90% of cases). It’s not far fetched — the original, pre-.NET Visual Basic did a very good job of this.
The goals were good, and other platforms haven't really tried to achieve them (KParts and Bonobo were the closest equivalents but both were abandoned a long time ago, DBUS isn't quite the same thing). But COM was fiddly.