Windows 11 still sucks.

[BenFenner]

Off-topic:

Just keep running it (assuming you have a great layer of protection upstream).

Can you please refer me to a link or briefly tell me what you mean by protection upstream, I ask because I can imagine wanting to run Windows 10 for as long as possible.

Up until very recently, even just an old NAT device running OpenWRT or similar would be enough to keep a poorly-updated Windows XP box free of malware and intrusions all the way up to just a few years ago. Provided you used a very secure browser (see this forum), never clicked on any links in e-mails (typical good practice anyway), and ran excellent ad blocking. Oh, and generally just having good computer hygiene and a high degree of skepticism toward anything coming from outside your device.

Anyway, these days there is maybe a little more to do, and as athenian guessed, I'm talking about just a tad more protection at a minimum in the network devices upstream of the PCs. A hardware firewall that auto-updates. A router with firmware that auto-updates. Ad blocking at the router level, etc.
Look into a device like the Turris Omina: https://www.turris.com/en/omnia/overview

[suzyne]

Off-topic:

Anyway, these days there is maybe a little more to do, and as athenian guessed, I'm talking about just a tad more protection at a minimum in the network devices upstream of the PCs. A hardware firewall that auto-updates. A router with firmware that auto-updates. Ad blocking at the router level, etc.

I think he means having something like a hardware firewall and maybe a DNS server that blocks malicious sites at the DNS level, so it can protect your machine and be kept up-to-date without requiring the OS itself to be updated. This approach isn't foolproof, but it does provide some protection to machines that can't update their OS.

Thank you for the explanations! Those sound like measures I would only do reluctantly if absolutely necessary, so i think I will cross that bridge when I get there. I know my Laptop 1 can run Windows 11, but I am trying to avoid upgrading as long as possible.

[moonbat]

The writing on the wall has been clear for a while - Microsoft has successfully transitioned from an operating system maker to a cloud provider. Azure is now their biggest revenue generator followed by Office 365 and then only Windows. As it is average people switched to using mobile phones as their primary device more than 10 years ago, so the writing on the wall was clear to them - desktop OSes are only going to be used mainly in office environments and by professional creators rather than end users. Even gaming is slowly moving to a subscription or cloud model.
Steve Ballmer tried his best to crack the mobile market during his CEO tenure, but even buying up Nokia didn't help. Satya Nadella has accepted the reality that Windows Phone was never going to break the Android-iOS duopoly and opted to make Microsoft apps work with them instead while focusing on the real competitor for cloud services - AWS. So after Office 365, the subscription model for Windows itself was inevitable.

Makes me even more relieved I made the complete switch to Linux, 4 years and counting. Hopefully gaming on Linux will get more viable as time passes. Thank heaven Mint offers only one major release every year instead of rolling breaking updates every fortnight.

[andyprough]

We have similar issues in the world of GNU/Linux where a lot of distributions try to push users to use the Gnome desktop which I hate, but I just use a different desktop environment or a window manager. My preference in recent years has been a tiling window manager called DWM. Can't you just do something like that with Windows 11? I assume Windows must have a lot more desktop environments and window managers to choose from because there are so many more users.

[moonbat]

I assume Windows must have a lot more desktop environments and window managers to choose from because there are so many more users.

Not part of Windows although there were a few third party ones like StarDock's WindowBlinds from the early 00s that added extra window decorations and features. Windows XP could be modified with complete themes that altered the start menu and system & folder icons. No idea if these things are even possible anymore after Windows 8 introduced Metro UI.

[Moonchild]

Can't you just do something like that with Windows 11?

Not really, because Windows' APIs are mostly black boxes. There have been a few desktop environments/explorer replacements in days past (e.g. Talisman) but even "skinning" at the most basic level is pretty much impossible these days, let alone making fundamental changes to how the desktop environment works.
E.g. if it was documented then someone could write a "good old control panel" application to give people back a fully usable control panel, but if you want to do that now you'd have to do guesswork and reverse engineering to remake what Microsoft removed.

[moonbat]

Windows' APIs are mostly black boxes

I used to use Classic Shell and its successor Open Shell, to bring back the regular start menu as was present until Windows 7. It let one add the control panel as a cascading menu as used to be possible before. Have you tried that? Can't bring back removed control panel applets of course

[Moonchild]

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm using Windows 10 as my daily driver with open shell already there.
I've just done regular probes of Windows 11 over time and seen no progress and a lot of deterioration leading me to post this thread.
I may be forced to switch to Win 10 LTSC if no acceptable alternatives bubble up.

[RealityRipple]

Just need to make a UXP-based explorer.exe replacement. Extension file manager, Extension taskbar, Extension Start menu. Then you'll never have to notice what version of Windows you're actually on.

Assuming they never take away "HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon\Shell" of course.

[athenian200]

One idea I've had is that I might wind up trying to run Windows 10 LTSC in a Windows 11 VM, so that I'm not running it on bare metal after support ends, and could possibly run it on newer hardware that doesn't properly support 10. The one good thing about Windows 11 is that apparently it has a really good hypervisor now, because they're trying to make it more able to run Android and earlier versions of Windows, so maybe that's what I should use it as.

My biggest fear about Windows is not so much that Microsoft will make Windows suck... it's more that one day there may not be a Windows at all. I felt pretty safe that Windows would always exist in some form as long as there was a 32-bit version of it, because that meant they were still going to keep it around to support ancient enterprise software that might be 16-bit. I mean, they've killed Internet Explorer and replaced it with Chromium-based Edge, they've put out a smartphone with Android instead of Windows Phone, and now they've killed off the 32-bit version of Windows. The pattern here is not looking good. And if you look at the trend Office is taking, particularly with Outlook, you'll notice that they are slowly turning them into essentially web apps that can run within Edge/Chromium, and there is actually pretty decent integration of OneDrive and Outlook into Edge. So the question is, why would they do all of this if they thought Windows had a future?

The only answer I can come up with is that they're preparing for a future in which most Office applications and Microsoft services can be used on an OS that isn't Windows. They are improving interoperability of their offerings with Mac, Android, and Linux. That is to say, they don't care about Windows anymore except as some kind of legacy offering for enterprises that have old Windows software. And I honestly won't be surprised if the Home version of Windows is discontinued at some point in favor of something like an EdgeOS experience, or a Linux distro loaded down with Microsoft services, kinda like Ubuntu is with Canonical services.

A lot of the open source community is praising this change, but frankly I kind of preferred the old Microsoft that wanted to profit off their software and actually cared what OS people used. Now that they are making money off services instead, they won't care about what OS people use, and may come to see maintaining Windows as a liability.

[BenFenner]

I used to use Classic Shell and its successor Open Shell, to bring back the regular start menu as was present until Windows 7.

Windows 7 would be intolerable for me without Classic Shell. It is a godsend for me.

[moonbat]

Windows 7 would be intolerable for me without Classic Shell.

What was wrong with 7?
Classic Shell was of use later when they replaced the regular start menu with the horrible Metro one.

[BenFenner]

What was wrong with 7?

The Start Menu was quite bloated, with no way to remove everything you used to be able to in previous versions.

For example, here is a typical Windows 7 Start Menu:


And here is the best you can accomplish without Classic Shell. This is what mine looks like with every single built-in customization possible, but without Classic Shell:


And here is mine with Classic Shell:


The explorer behavior is limited, and the only way to return some functionality (like the up-directory button and similar) was with Classic Shell. The file transfer window lacked a lot of info from previous windows version like bitrate and such, all returned with Classic Shell.

[moonbat]

Ah so you prefer the XP look. Though you can remove the shortcuts on the right side from the regular start menu preferences and file transfer speed was introduced in Vista.

[BenFenner]

Ah so you prefer the XP look.

That Fisher Price nonsense? No thank you. Win 2k as mentioned earlier in this thread.
Or I mean Win98 and Win95 as well. XP is when things got bad, but you could at least get it back to Win2k look & feel without a 3rd party app. Win7 went off the reservation.

file transfer speed was introduced in Vista.

Yah, it's been sooooo long since I had to deal with a default Win7 install, I've forgotten what functionality Classic Shell returns, but it is very useful info. Maybe it just allows one to show "more info" automatically without expanding that option every time? I don't know, it's a huge quality of life improvement for me, whatever it was.

[BenFenner]

Speaking of Vista...

Moonchild, are you saying Win11 is on par with WinMe and Vista as far as total dumpster fires? Or did you eventually get on board with Me and Vista, and Win11 is the first time you're at this stage of grief?

(I forget where you landed on Win8 or Win8.1 but I lump them in with Me and Vista, not sure about you. But then again I also lump Win10 and Win11 in with them as well, so obviously I don't share your head space. And if push comes to shove, I'd of course say Vista was better than Me...)

Heck, I'll start. Here's my Windows ranking from their use in the day:

---- best ----
Windows 2000
Windows 98
Windows 95
Windows NT 4.0
Windows XP
Windows 7 (ranks higher with 3rd party apps to fix regressions, but here it is without)
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.0
--- line of terolability ----
Windows Vista
Windows Millennium Edition
Windows 8.0
Windows 8.1
Window 10
Windows 11
---- worst ----

[mrnhmath]

I'm getting by with the LTSC edition of Windows 10 for many years now, but even with almost all of the SaaS nonsense stripped out the XAML-based views do stick out like a sore thumb.

The Linux side of things stand a little better for now. TDE can provide a sane desktop environment, but lack of contributors on an aging codebase adds to a bunch of paper cuts.

[moonbat]

Never had any problems with ME, it booted faster than 98 SE and had the explorer shell enhancements that 2000 introduced. I used to dual boot it with 2000 as the latter seemed faster for dialup internet usage.

That Fisher Price nonsense?

I mean the multiple cascading submenus across the screen (where an accidental click elsewhere would mean you start again) that was the standard before Vista introduced the search feature. Fisher price look could always be reverted to 'classic' mode. Now even that isn't an option.

[jobbautista9]

People who have it, have it because it came on a new computer

Yep, I can attest to this! In fact this is how I got back to Windows and was able to contribute to some Windows-specific issues on UXP back then.

The next usability problem that I have and I've had since the very release of Windows 11 is that stupid "simplified" Windows 11 context menu.
If you click on "show more options", then you get the context menu you're normally used to. Another example of just layering something on top of what already existed but what's layered isn't just given a different look, it is also severely reduced in functionality making you end up having to call up the original context menu. That brings me to the next point below. I get why Microsoft changed the context menu: they wanted it to look more "modern", but everyone hates it. I have yet to talk to a single person that says they think the new menu is an improvement over the old one.

Oh my god, this. This is perhaps my biggest pet peeve with W11. It's not just the lack of functionality that I have a problem with. If Microsoft thinks that turning basic file operations like "cut" and "rename" into icons makes things easier, they are sorely mistaken. Everytime I right-click, I had to use a lot more brainpower than needed just to achieve the basic thing I want. The registry hack to get the old context menu back is very silly; MS should definitely make it a user-friendly option in the Settings. But obviously they won't because then everyone would just switch over to the old right-click menu.

[athenian200]

Heck, I'll start. Here's my Windows ranking from their use in the day:

---- best ----
Windows 2000
Windows 98
Windows 95
Windows NT 4.0
Windows XP
Windows 7 (ranks higher with 3rd party apps to fix regressions, but here it is without)
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.0
--- line of terolability ----
Windows Vista
Windows Millennium Edition
Windows 8.0
Windows 8.1
Window 10
Windows 11
---- worst ----

That's an interesting list. I was actually thinking of a similar list where I kind of go over things I miss from each Windows version all the way back to 3.11...

Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 transition:

- Being able to restart Windows without having to restart my whole computer.
- Being able to save time by booting into something like DOSSHELL if I don't feel like running a Windows application.
- The slightly thicker indicators on window borders that help you figure out where to position your mouse if you want to resize a window on a diagonal.
- The original title bar was a bit less cluttered. There was no "X", and you just double-clicked on where the application icon is now to close it, so it was harder to accidentally close applications.
- This one is just nostalgia, but I kinda liked Program Manager's UI and having more room to play around with application group names and the location of icons within them.

Windows 95 to Windows 98 transition:

Actually... I can't think of anything here. It seems like Windows 98 is basically just a better version of Windows 95, unless you are stuck on older hardware that doesn't support 98 well. They blur together in my mind as Windows 9x, honestly.

Windows 98 to Windows ME transition:

- Removed the ability to reboot in MS-DOS Mode, making it harder to run certain DOS applications (though at this point you could hack it back in if you wanted).
- Less stable than previous versions of Windows.

That's a surprisingly short list, but they are both huge enough that they loom large in people's memories, despite Windows ME being mostly the same as Windows 98SE under the hood.

Windows ME to Windows XP transition:

- Product activation is now required, so I can't just buy one version of Windows and install it on both my PC and my Mom's PC.
- The underlying DOS system is finally removed completely, now all you have is NTVDM, which is far less compatible with DOS applications than even Windows ME.
- The default theme has this ugly Fisher Price look and you have to go out of your way to switch back to the classic theme that looks kinda like Windows 9x.
- No support for Windows 9x device drivers, rendering a lot of perfectly good hardware useless.

Windows XP to Windows Vista transition:

- Poor support for Windows XP device drivers and a new driver subsystem, recreating a similar problem to what we saw when going from 9x/ME to XP.
- UAC was really annoying (though it was possible to disable it).
- Hardware requirements were insane (My first Vista machine was a Core 2 Quad with 4GB of RAM that felt a bit slower than my old Athlon XP with 512MB of RAM, unless I used ReadyBoost and sacrificed a USB drive for file caching).
- They cut support for it around the same time as XP, and wouldn't let you upgrade to 7 without paying. Meanwhile, people who stayed on XP and missed out on the "fun" of Vista were able to upgrade to 7 with just an upgrade license.

Windows Vista to Windows 7 transition:

- Eliminated a lot of nice Windows Vista Ultimate Extras, making the Ultimate version harder to justify purchasing.
- Moved a lot of things that had been system components into Windows Live and required you to download them separately.

Those are nitpicks, but for the most part it's just like the transition from Windows 95 to 98... Windows 7 is mostly just a better Vista, in the same way Windows 98 is mostly just a better Windows 95.

Windows 7 to Windows 8 transition:

- Eliminated the Start Menu in favor of the Start screen, which worked terribly on conventional machines with a mouse and keyboard and a fully upright, non-touchscreen monitor.
- On most Metro apps, you could only use them full screen or in split-screen mode. You couldn't have the applications in... well, windows.
- No Windows games like Solitaire by default, though looking for Solitaire would lead you to the app store.
- Very few choices for themes and customization of the UI.
- No DVD playback in Windows Media Player, and DVD Maker was retired as well.

Windows 8 to Windows 8.1 transition:

Actually, I can't really think of a downside here... Windows 8.1 was free and it was just a better a Windows 8.

Windows 8.1 to Windows 10 transition:

- Usability on tablets is reduced, as Windows 10 start menu is junky and less elegant than the start screen, feeling like a bad compromise between the Windows 7 way of doing things and the Windows 8 way.
- Can no longer view Windows Help files.
- Internet Explorer was removed in later versions.
- Some advanced settings are harder to access or can't be changed at all compared with Windows 8.
- Can no longer create bootable MS-DOS floppies for things like BIOS flashing, etc.

For anyone on a normal desktop computer who wasn't terribly attached to IE, though, Windows 10 is mostly an improvement over Windows 8.

Windows 10 to Windows 11 transition:

- UI looks ugly with rounded corners and reminds me too much of macOS or ChromeOS.
- No more live tiles, and tablet usability seems to get worse than with Windows 10
- Dumbed-down context menus that aren't as helpful.
- Skype is no longer integrated, has to be downloaded separately.
- No 32-bit version, meaning 16-bit Windows applications will never work again (a lot of them actually still did on Windows 10 32-bit).
- UWP is deprecated, meaning the few app developers that were using it will likely switch to worse stuff like PWAs or Electron.

So I guess after that analysis, probably the best Windows version for me was Windows 98SE. And the second best version might have been Windows 3.x, because it mostly stayed out of your way but was there when you needed it. As for the others, it really depends on what you wanted. If you wanted long-term support and stability, along with decent backwards compatibility for Windows applications, but didn't really care about DOS, Windows XP was hard to beat. If you wanted a good tablet OS, Windows 8.1 was decent. If you wanted an OS that makes the most of modern desktop computers, and pretty much was designed around the peak of multimedia PCs with Blu-Ray and DVD support, TV tuners, etc, then Windows 7 is hard to beat, especially the Media Center edition. If you want an OS that makes employee training easier, makes it easy to run Office, gets long-term support, maximizes security by forcing automatic updates, and kind of protects people from themselves, Windows 10 is great.

I think the worst thing about Windows 11, though... is that I don't even know who it is for. It's not for tablets like Windows 8 was. It's not for diehard traditional desktop enthusiasts who liked Windows 7. It keeps changing stuff up and requires retraining, so it's not for big corporations that like stability. It's just a bad clone of macOS, built around the shriveled core of what was left after they cut away most of the features from older versions of Windows, and then on top of it took back most of what they added between Windows 8 and 10 that was meant to help tablet functionality or integrate with now-defunct Microsoft services. It honestly looks like Windows having the software product equivalent of a mid-life crisis and having no sense of what it wants to be anymore. It seems like the sole purpose of Windows 11 is to be some kind of mission statement renouncing the direction they took with Windows 8 and 10, but without appearing to be backwards looking and committing to moving forward and being modern, without really having a clearly-defined idea of what that means. So they did what worked for them in the past... they copied Mac to try and appear more modern without really adding any features, and also cut legacy features that not many people were using to give the illusion of progress.