Microsoft should accept and give up Windows 11, throw everything at Windows 12
techradar.com
techradar.com
> There’s also the fact that the OS has been forcing ads as "recommendations" into the Start menu and has even begun testing promotional recommendation pages that take up your whole screen, urging users to make Edge the default browser and installing or enabling other services. The worst part is that there’s no way to fully opt out of these ads, which accomplish nothing but clog up the UI with constant notifications.
If Microsoft wanted to drop that, they could do so instantly. But apparently MS values the ad revenue more than they do the trust in their system, and going to Windows 12 won't magically change MS's mind.
Granted, I haven't paid attention to Windows since about 2020, when a brief flirtation with an OEM copy of Windows 10 turned me off the platform permanently. So maybe this is just me being out of touch - although, if they are still charging money for it, maybe not as out of touch as Microsoft's product leadership.
It's normally wouldn't be a problem, except their new outlook Mail app has ads that look like emails. The very first "email" Is actually an ad built into the default mail client.
I had to explain to my grandmother that she has to always just ignore the first email since it will always be an ad.
They could go to drawing a more distinct and reachable line with the Home users suffering more while the rest has to pay more initially.
Home users feeding the machine while others get more privacy.
And so on.
So you constantly see one ad, instead?
Personally, I think that's one of the several big reasons to avoid Win 11.
As a Dev (and company owner) I would pay for a stripped out version of Windows Pro that contains only the stuff I need for dev and nothing else. No AI crap, no spyware and forced updates crap etc.
I can already see a lot of people using outdated versions w/o support just to avoid espionage hell.
Statistically, 100% of people are willing to take exactly what they get when they buy a new computer. With the same precision of rounding, 0% of people are going to dig into settings to see if they can turn off something that they find annoying- usually because they're afraid of breaking something.
People literally buy smart TVs that play ads when they aren't even watching anything (or it's been paused for a few minutes).
I hope that this triggers what is needed for people and companies to move over to open source software like FreeBSD.
HN commenters have a habbit of massively overestimating how important this is to normal users.
I was immediately reminded of the story of Joe Kennedy and the Shoeshine boy:
https://www.pitzlfinancial.com/blog/ode-shoeshine-boy
> As the story goes, Joseph was walking around when he decided to sit down for a shoeshine. While polishing his shoes, the young worker gave Joseph some of his favorite stock picks. When Joseph heard the shoeshine boy giving out stock tips, he figured the party was about to end, and it was time to get out of the market.
Windows has always gotten a healthy dose of derision from the tech community, but now it’s starting to come from people who have never had any reason to care about computers before, beyond the convenience they offer. Now that they do, I am not sure that it’s good for Windows.
So at least one commenter on HN underestimates how important this has already and will become in the future for normal users.
Being in the Windows ecosystem lets me benefit from that crazy backwards compat and support for mainstream software, windows-rs lets me customize a batteries-included DE[1] without having to touch JS, and on the WSL2 side of things I can run NixOS for all of my regular development needs.
It's very sad and frustrating to see Microsoft, despite all of this, trying to make the operating system as un-useable as possible in all the ways mentioned in this article and in other comments.
Actually the source I linked lays it out pretty clearly:
> That (in)famous statement was actually spoken by Jerry Nixon, a developer evangelist at Microsoft, whose job is to get developers excited about developing for Microsoft Store, at the 2015 Microsoft Ignite. Nevertheless, the technology media blew it up, and soon everyone was accepting it as gospel. But it never was.
But still, I just want stability. Also the lack of support for older hardware - I just built a PC four years ago and am being told its not good enough for 11? No thanks.
"How Windows 10X runs UWP and Win32 apps"
Ahh, but does that mean benefit to corporate entity, or does it mean benefits to managers/executives that are seeking promotions/compensation? :p
Well sure! Remember that whole kerfuffle over Windows 11 requiring TPM? A new major version means new hardware requirements and new hardware requirements mean new vendor obligations. It's their silver-bullet solution for whenever hardware vendors get uppity.
Uhm, yes, they are making people pay for a new copy?
1980's: we all wanted personal computers
1990's: we all wanted the Internet
2000's: we all wanted social networks
2010's: we all wanted mobile devices
2020's: we just want to get rid of shitty search and AI surveillance
Make Windows Seven Again.
1984-5: Big corpos, banks and so badly needs IBM PC's for everything. Every big serious office gets computerized.
1993-4: We want PCs for everyone -> Windows 95 and the Multimedia PCs with MSOffice, CD Players and so.
2003-4: Internet for everyone -> Flat rate broadband and P2P plus IM changues everything.
2013-4: Social media for everyone -> Everyone got its smartphone.
If they simply allowed people on older devices to install Windows 11, those usage numbers would double or triple basically overnight. I don't think most non-HN people care about spying, but they also don't care enough about having the latest version of Windows to buy a whole new computer. I can't imagine why Microsoft thought they would.
The big question is what happens when Windows 10 support ends, about a year and a half from now. Microsoft will basically be creating one of the biggest security disasters of all time by no longer providing updates for Windows 10 to keep it secure. It's hard to believe they'll do that, but all signs point to it. Support ending is not going to convince people to start throwing out perfectly functional computers.
Registry Key: HKEY_LOCAL MACHINE\SYSTEM\Setup\MoSetup
Name: AllowUpgradesWithUnsupportedTPMOrCPU
Type: REG_DWORD
Value: 1
As an example, when macOS 12 (Monterey) reaches end of life in a few months, MacBook Pro pre-2017, MacBook Air pre-2018, iMac pre-2017, and Mac Mini pre-2018 will all be unsupported and no longer receive security updates.
You recall a bunch of publications saying that, but not an official statement from Microsoft. It was all conjecture based on one comment one person made during one breakout session at one developer conference.
It was Jerry Nixon, speaking at a Microsoft conference on behalf of MSFT as a Microsoft employee, not on person opinion. He said that Windows 10 was the last numbered version of windows directly.
Gartner did some faff around it and editoralised that into it being the last version of windows. Subtle difference.
What part of my comment falls under the "no"? It was one guy (a Microsoft employee) stating one time at one conference speaking to a completely unrelated topic (Live Tiles). You think Jerry Nixon, a developer evangelist, was the kind of person authorized to make such a statement of "Windows 10 will be the last version of Windows" while giving a presentation on Live Tiles?
If a developer evangelist was giving a talk about bringing Clippy back to Word and how you can add your own prompts and they made the statement of "we're discontinuing Xbox", would you take that as an official statement of Microsoft's intentions?
So it was a Microsoft employee speaking in a conference being quoted by the press?
There's 300,000 employees at Microsoft. You think they're all on the same page of everything all the time? This employee wasn't there to speak about the future of Windows, just to showcase how to use the new functionality of Live Tiles. It wasn't some big meeting about the future of Windows by any measure.
A statement by an official employee has been made, it was widely publicized and never corrected. The onus to correct a false statement by an employee is on the company. With the amount of publicity, Microsoft definitely knew about this false advertisement, but did not want to correct it, because it was in Microsoft's interest for public to believe it was the official truth.
Microsoft should accept that it's time to give up on Windows
That was never an official promise. It was one developer advocate making an off-hand comment in a breakout session which had a topic of designing Live Tiles.
however - I don't know how much longer I can balance my privacy against this functionality, and it is a struggle in the workplace as well, where management seems to appreciate the functionality to restrict, constrain and monitor their users.
Vista, 8 and 11 were all a step back for usability and stability, while 7 and 10 were solid with a decent user interface.
Perhaps they just get bored with something that’s working well, and start tinkering (“Let’s move the WLAN control 2 layers removed from the system tray and also make”, “The Explorer context menu has too much stuff for power users”).
Right ? It is actually more like "less wrong".
Vista was essentially XP with the GUI for Windows 7, Windows 8 was essentially the Windows 10 GUI with the Windows 7 OS, etc.
11 is just 10 with broken GUI updates, 12 will be the finalized version of the 11 GUI with the actual underlying OS updated as well.
Window 8 was .NET redone by the same folks, as the original idea from Ext-VOS, COM getting IInspectable, in addition to IUnknown, while Type Libraries replaced by .NET metadata.
Windows 10 was the reunification of WinRT programming models across devices.
For example Vista introduced many things that changed the fundamental nature of Windows, UAC (split tokens, integrity levels, etc), new audio stack, overhaul of IPv6, new display driver model. A lot of these new driver changes and the extra hardware requirements caused a lot of issues whereas when 7 came out the requirements were no longer as burdomsome and manufacturers had more time to release better drivers.
Windows 8 introduced UWP silos, new startup process, Hyper-V as a client. 8.1 and 10 were definitely more iterations on the GUI and other features to make it a bit more palatable.
There were massive changes in Vista, new audio stack, new default permissions, new USB stack, new networking stack, new graphics stack, which caused tons of compatibility problems.
Source: I was there
With that being said, what kind of change would "save" Windows? From an organizational perspective, a spin-off would be most effective... albeit the least likely. If we take that off the table, the next best thing would be to retool the product so that it scales better for such an unwieldy organization. I'm talking a new kernel that's compact and totally modular... but good luck dealing with that can of worms. It all circles back to Microsoft as a corporate entity -- what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
And it isn't only Windows, notice the whole drama regarding XBox hardware.
W12 = Wine + your favorite distribution.
(Yeah, yeah, like wayland, it's never going to happen but I can dream, can't I)
> Please verify that you are NoMoreNicksLeft by saying "Doritos™ Dew™ it right!"
I think it must've updated over the long weekend.