Hacker News Reader

"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).

Same, I'm just not doing Win11, I would rather run DOS.

xfce + Chicago 95 is a lovely environment

https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95

"Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me."

Windows ME was peak windows to 2000

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.

Exactly - LTSC is awesome

It's like real windows again.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> > 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 remember when Microsoft’s Windows marketing was “Where do you want to go today?” And that was the evil, Bill Gates, peak-monopolizing Microsoft. Now, it might as well be “You’re going where we say you’re going, so deal with it.”

> 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.

Is it possible that the reason you can enjoy all the good things that a Mac brings is because of, not despite, the fact that they are "pushy" on those things? Without the income from the pushy stuff, they would have to cut corners on the other stuff. Be careful what you wish for, I think the saying goes…

That could very well be… I can’t argue with that.

A company with plenty of income can invest in all sorts of nice things.

Guess it’s same way I scoff at the Porsche SUVs, but they fund R&D for the 911.

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?

A persistent notification badge on Settings because it believes I just haven't gotten to setting up Siri after all these years

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.

"Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me. "

Exactly, Windows 2000 was such a comfortable workhorse. And lightning fast, it made me doubt why I was a Mac head. I switched briefly until OS X grew up and surpassed any version of Windows in reliability and versatility (for me).

> 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.

"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.

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.