You don't think that if we had everyone on the same Windows version we could streamline things enormously?
For MS, for developers, for hardware manufacturers, and so on to be able to deploy, for example, ipv6 since everyone is on the same stack? Same stack, same bugs, same fixes.
The difference in effort between updating one versus two very similar code bases is minor, especially when "Windows 10" and "Windows 11" each refer to multiple versions already.
For drivers you only need one version to support both.
IPv6 has been built into Windows for ages. If you think they can force toggle it or something, that won't work at all and deleting Windows 10 wouldn't make it easier.
I can't think of a situation where consolidating Windows versions makes a big difference. I can think of useful situations based on getting rid of all other OSes and/or Microsoft instantly forcing out updates to everyone, but those are different scenarios and they come with severe downsides.
How about testing? Do you think that there's no testing put out when a fix has to go out for 2 OS, regardless of how similar they are?
> What problems are solved by getting all Windows users onto Windows 11 in particular?
I have given a few. If you don't want to see it, that's fine.
I would estimate that supporting both windows 10 and 11 is a single digit percentage harder than supporting just one of them. Whereas with python it became a huge deal to maintain versions in parallel or never upgrade to new features. Windows 10 versus 11 is like supporting a few minor releases of python at the same time, not 2.x and 3.x. And with IPv4 and IPv6 you're nearly doing double duty to have both.
> I have given a few. If you don't want to see it, that's fine.
Where? You said something vague about streamlining, and the only concrete example was something about "deploy ipv6" which Microsoft did back in Vista.