Windows 11 still sucks.

[Moonchild]

TL;DR I really try to like it but I can't.

It's been almost two years since Windows 11 was released, and I'm sorry to say it still sucks.

Windows 11 was the operating system that no one asked for and quite honestly no one really wants. It was thrown onto US completely unexpectedly and to be perfectly honest with you, I think most people really did get taken by surprise I know I did...
I was expecting Windows 10 to be a rolling release that simply lasted forever. I mean, that's what Microsoft said it was going to be, so I just kind of took them for their word on that... but obviously, that's not going to be the case, and at almost two years since its release, more and more people are adopting windows 11.

However, I can tell you one thing and that is people are not upgrading to Windows 11.
People who have it, have it because it came on a new computer and it's pretty clear that even in that situation, not everyone's happy with it. In fact and to be blunt: Windows 11 still sucks.
The worst part of this is that it doesn't have to suck. Microsoft could have fixed this by now, and I don't know why they haven't. With every version of Windows I've always taken the approach that it's best to just sit back, don't be an early adopter, and wait a year or so for teething problems to be worked out before considering it (aside from Windows 8, that is).
Even Windows 7 Beta, I mean Windows Vista, eventually got better and to a usable state after a while.
I want Windows 11 to succeed and I want it to be a great version bringing back a little of the elegance we lost after Windows 7's UI downgrade to the tablet-first flatness.
I legitimately want to see Windows get better and continue to dominate the desktop market. It has literal decades of good, intuitive UI history and it's easy to pick up and learn for anyone as a result. I've been a Windows user since Windows 3.0, and aside from Windows 8, which honestly was total blasphemy (let's not talk about that any more) I have used every single version of Windows that has been released without many qualms. So, I'm not against Microsoft Windows and I genuinely want to like Windows 11. But here we are, almost at the two year anniversary of the release of Windows 11, and I still hate it.
I don't hate it for the reasons you might think, because some people just hate the Apple-like UI. And to be perfectly honest, I can kind of understand why: Windows 11 doesn't look like a polished version of Windows; it looks like something that was just thrown together because Microsoft needed something to release... A half-baked apple (pun intended!). Neither fresh nor done.

But honestly, the UI is not why I think Windows 11 sucks. No, the reason why I hate Windows 11 is because Microsoft won't leave it alone; they constantly and incessantly keep doing things that no one's asking for, while not fixing the things that users are asking them to fix.
Sometimes it feels like it's just some kind of sick joke at Microsoft; maybe they're just sitting around trolling us or something, because there are legitimate gripes about the usability of Windows 11 and instead of fixing those, Microsoft is creating more usability issues instead by pushing more "features" nobody asked for.

• The first gripe I have continues to get worse and this is the very one that inspired me to make this post is Microsoft's incessant desire to eliminate the control panel, and especially how they go about doing so. I totally get why they want Settings to be the default place people go to change settings on their system. I mean it makes sense and it's a lot more friendly to touch interfaces... I've heard all the arguments and they're all valid, but here's the problem: control panel has been around for decades - that's literally what we know and luckily Microsoft does give us a way to access the control panel but they're slowly taking it away piece by piece with every update.
  They're systematically taking away pages with each update and, what's worse, you don't know about it until you need it or even worse go out to help someone on Windows 11 and then realise that you can't find the page that you need in order to configure the thing that you're trying to configure. Cue mad scramble with a ton of frustration and actually looking like a fool bumbling around going in circles to try and get to where you need to go.
  This kind of on-going change should remain limited to pre-releases of software. Like Alpha or at most Beta stage. Not a production release...
  Want to get rid of Control Panel? Then make sure Settings is complete and make us swap over to "the new way of doing things" when it's done (and leaving control panel along in the meantime) but not this half-baked constantly changing ambiguity where a click will send you this time.
• 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.
• Excessive clicks needed to achieve the same result. Why exactly does Microsoft think it's an improvement to increase the number of clicks to perform a task that you used
  to be able to perform with a fraction of the number of clicks? This is especially egregious when it comes to what's in the system tray/notification area of the task bar. Pretty much all of the system icons no longer respond to left clicks to call up the most common use-case (also meaning it's been reduced to display-only on most touch screens... how is that a more touch-friendly UI?), now often having to go through right-click, then navigating 4, 5, 8, 12, ... (left and right) clicks deep to get to the same thing. e.g. the "networking" icon - getting to network and internet settings is a looong path from there. In Windows 10 it's two left clicks.
• Another problem that I have with Windows 11 is Microsoft accounts. I honestly don't think Microsoft understands the problem this causes for technicians (or if they
  even care). If a system has a Microsoft account and no local accounts it becomes extremely difficult to actually fix someone's computer without them being there all the time to log in for you so you can work on it. Thankfully there are ways to still bypass this but if Microsoft ever makes this no longer possible, it's going to make it all the much more difficult to actually provide user support.
• Another main issue I have with Windows 11 is the absolutely stupid hardware requirements Windows 11. Microsoft has made it to where you practically need a new system to run Windows 11.
  Windows 10 loses support in less than two years and I can tell you right now that only about 10 percent of the people I know currently on Windows 10 meet the hardware requirements for Windows 11. I honestly don't know what's going to happen when Windows 10 finally loses support; I guess I'm going to be helping a lot of people build new PCs...
  Unfortunately this is not good for the consumer. In fact it's not good for anyone that uses Windows.
  Furthermore, some of the hardware that does meet the windows 11 system requirements can barely run the operating system, so that makes another argument here: Microsoft is telling me that an Intel 7700k doesn't meet the system requirements for Windows 11, but an 8th generation Celeron does. Have you ever tried to use a Windows 11 computer with an 8th generation Celeron?
  Some people have gaming systems that are just a few years old that don't meet the windows 11 system requirements but run it exceptionally well, but at the same time there are computers right now sitting on the shelf in stores that come with Windows 11, but that are about as fast as a guy trying to drive to work on a skippy ball. It's just totally irrational.
  The system requirements are arbitrary and unnecessary.

I know that right now there's a ton of people wanting to comment saying you should just switch to Linux. I get it, sure. I'm not going to bash Linux here but for most people it's simply not an answer to the Windows conundrum.
It's been almost two years, Windows 11 should be better by now. I knew it wasn't good when first released and I've kept telling people to just hang back for a while, thinking it'd get better. But that grace period is over now. This stuff should have been fixed by now; there's no excuse anymore and I genuinely want to recommend people that it's time to upgrade to Windows 11. I really do. I just can't, because I just don't want to suggest an OS that is utterly frustrating to use.

Microsoft is really failing its user base right now. They have 2 more years to get their act together so here's hoping.

[moonbat]

Windows 7 was peak Windows for me - the epitome of a desktop operating system with the beautiful Aero Glass 3D effects. Since then it has been going downhill, subtracting features as you said, and adopting the (fr)Agile model of rabid release that Chrome pioneered for end user software. Agile is great for IT consulting companies building enterprise software for their customers; they get to see progress every few weeks and can suggest changes accordingly; it makes zero sense for end user software where ordinary folk have no such burning requirement to have changes foisted on them so often.

So now what used to be a nightly or beta release has become the main build, and what used to be the main build has become an ESR or LTS release - and end users are the unpaid beta testers (Not just Windows - any modern browser or any other software that's 'free'). I stuck with Windows through version 10 until 2019 just for gaming - changes in my life led to using an underpowered laptop that I installed Linux Mint on and now I find I don't miss Windows at all. Looking at what can only be called a clown show now especially with 11, I'm happy with Mint XFCE, with a traditional desktop environment like Windows XP/7 and no change for its own sake. I'm now considering switching to a newer Linux based laptop with a good graphics card since Steam and Vulcan have somewhat improved Linux as a gaming platform.

[Pentium4User]

I can't understand why people complain about Win 11, but on the other side they refuse to learn other operating system like the many Linux distributions or BSD systems.
I didn't accept MS' activities with Windows 10 and decided to go another way.

[suzyne]

I think complaining about a product that was once loved (or tolerated or simply convenient to use), but which the manufacturer changes in ways to make it less functional, is a very reasonable act.

Such a lament is unrelated to whether or not there are other better options available.

[Pentium4User]

I think complaining about a product that was once loved (or tolerated or simply convenient to use), but which the manufacturer changes in ways to make it less functional, is a very reasonable act.

I completely agree that criticism is reasonable, but I don't understand why people simply continue to use it instead of using alternative options.

[Moonchild]

I don't understand why people simply continue to use it instead of using alternative options.

For a lot of people there aren't reasonable alternatives available. It's not a matter of "refusing to learn" per se either. It's a combination of resistance to having to re-train yourself and the end result not providing what one wants from an O.S.
For example: I very well know how to use Linux, myself. I'm no stranger to, nor afraid of, a command-line either (I was brought up in the MS-DOS era, after all). But it simply doesn't provide what I want from an O.S. for desktop use, so I use Windows. As long as I have the reasonable choice to keep using it, I will, for that very reason. Now it's fine if you don't care about a large collection of software you have gotten familiar with and can switch, but for most people it's not just a matter of the O.S., but also the plethora of applications on that O.S. that will not come across with the switch -- and alternatives on the new O.S. simply not being equivalent, sufficient, or even available. Not even talking about purchased software here adding a financial incentive.

[FranklinDM]

I don't see myself upgrading to Windows 11 anytime soon as it does have a lot of stability and usability issues (at least, based on the last time I tried it on my PC). You can't even move the taskbar to the top of the screen without messing with the registry and/or installing a few 3rd party customization programs.

From what I can tell, they seem to be repeating a lot of the mistakes they did during the Longhorn dev cycle, particularly with mixing XAML/.NET and native UI. I've seen posts detailing that the new File Explorer UI introduces some latency while browsing folders, and the only way to fix it is toggling back and forth between File Explorer's fullscreen mode.

Perhaps they should revisit Jim Allchin's ~2004 email (emphasis mine):

I’m not sure how the company lost sight of what matters most to our clients (both business and home), but in my opinion we lost our way. I think our teams lost sight of what it means to be bug-free, what it means resilience, what full scenarios mean, what security means, what performance means, how important current applications are, and really understand what the issues are the most. important issues facing customers. ...

Longhorn Windows 11 is a pig.

[athenian200]

Yeah, honestly I am going to stay on Windows 10 as long as possible for my desktop computers. I've explored all the other OS options, even some obscure ones, and... it seems like no matter how bad Windows gets, it's still a better option than most of the alternatives.

I already have to use Windows 11 on a new laptop I got for school, though. Alder Lake really doesn't perform optimally on Windows 10, and needs the newer stuff from Windows 11. That's one reason why I built my Rocket Lake machine when I did... it's turning out to have been a good idea, because it was the last architecture to support AVX-512, Windows 10, and I think also the last one before they implemented some kind of ring bus change that slows down desktop performance. And it does meet the Windows 11 system requirements so that when I finally do have to upgrade to keep getting security updates, it will work. Though by that time Windows 12 will be out and I'll be catching the tail end of Windows 11 support, probably. Looks like I bought my new computer just in time.

I mean, as long as I don't have to do anything more with it than just use applications, Windows 11 works fine but looks ugly. The problems really start when you have to dig into the settings and change things. Though I guess I'm seeing a lot of the problems of Windows 11 throughout the software industry. Games are released broken and you have to wait for them to release enough patches to fix it. Everyone keeps gutting functionality to make things simpler for mobile/touchscreen users. There's just a kind of laziness and greed that has come out of the fact that software patches can be delivered after sale, and also a sense that no one cares about the PC space now that mobile is more lucrative and a bigger market than PC ever was. We will probably never see software of the pre-2010 quality ever again, but even so, I wouldn't want to just go back and use old stuff forever.

What I really want is something new that takes advantage of new hardware capabilities and isn't rushed, buggy, and mobile-first. But instead it seems like we are always caught between decaying, bitrotted old software that is barely functional in a modern context, and modern software that is often a bit buggy and barely functional if you need to do anything beyond the basics. There's just nothing GOOD anymore. Do you know what I mean? My nostalgia isn't strong enough for me to be content with older versions of things in 2023, but my expectations are set high because of what I saw was possible in the past. So I just wind up mildly annoyed with all my options and find nothing that really pleases me, so I might as well just groan and learn Windows 11 as anything else...

[Night Wing]

Instead of nitpicking about what you do not like about Windows 11, you just might see Windows 12 come out at the end of October of 2024 or early in 2025 and you'll really get a jolt. This is from a former Microsoft employee who came into our shop about two weeks ago and who left working for Microsoft three months ago.

He told me Windows 12 is going to be a "PC as a Service". So if anyone buys a new computer with Windows 12 on it, Windows 12 really won't be installed on it. When one fires up their new bought computer, it will be connected to one of Microsoft's servers "in the cloud". Along with your data. The local account will become extinct too and only a Microsoft account will be accepted.

He also told me the CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella, views Windows users "not as users", but as "cash cows". Meaning, he is beholden to his shareholders and his stakeholders so he will be doing his best to have the Windows 12 system become a yearly subscription just like Office is now with a steady cash flow. This way, he can keep his shareholders and stakeholders happy with them making money and when they are fat and happy with increasing money value in their portfolios, Satya will be happy because this will allow him to remain as CEO.

I think Businesses will have the "subscription only" model for Windows 12 and home users will be spared from subscription, but I think regular home users might get the "subscription only" model in Windows 13 if there is a Windows 13. And I expect there will be. Pure speculation on my part, but I knew the direction Microsoft was going to take when I first saw Windows 8. And I was correct back then. And I may be correct again in the future.

There will also be a lot of AI hooked into Windows 12. So if all this comes to fruition, you may dislike or hate Windows 12 so much, you just might grow to like or love Windows 11......a lot. And for those who say as much as they dislike Windows, they will stay with Windows and will never stray over to Linux........."never say never" because you just might want or have to. This will depend on how much you like being run over.

I don't expect extreme Gamers to move over to linux. They are die hards since they love their games on Windows and I think they will never switch over to Linux. But Valve and Steam games do run on linux for the occasion where someone has a game or two which they really like and can be played on Linux.

I've been using linux distributions since 2013. Settled on Linux Mint and now also dual boot Mint with MX Linux. And I am not a power user. Just a non-technical user in linux who knows enough about both of these distros to not get myself into trouble using them. Most linux distributions are not hard to learn either.

Also, I've used the command line linux Terminal a total of six times in ten years. So there are choices. One just has to look at those choices like a half glass of water. Which means depending on how you see it. Either half empty or half full.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

He also told me the CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella, views Windows users "not as users", but as "cash cows". Meaning, he is beholden to his shareholders and his stakeholders

Somehow I don't think the reasoning will be that simple. Stakeholders and shareholders will not be happy if there will be mass exodus of "cash cows", which is quite likely since the automotive industry with subscription-based "unlocking" of hardware is already teaching us that clients simply don't accept "hardware as a subscription". So, "PC as a service" will equally likely not work. The PC not working when there is an internet outage is something the vast majority of people will absolutely reject.
Businesses would be even less likely to accept this because then connectivity to Microsoft service becomes a single point of failure for the entire business. Any risk analysis done on that model will result in rejection for most businesses.

[athenian200]

He told me Windows 12 is going to be a "PC as a Service". So if anyone buys a new computer with Windows 12 on it, Windows 12 really won't be installed on it. When one fires up their new bought computer, it will be connected to one of Microsoft's servers "in the cloud". Along with your data. The local account will become extinct too and only a Microsoft account will be accepted.

He also told me the CEO of Microsoft, Satya Nadella, views Windows users "not as users", but as "cash cows". Meaning, he is beholden to his shareholders and his stakeholders so he will be doing his best to have the Windows 12 system become a yearly subscription just like Office is now with a steady cash flow. This way, he can keep his shareholders and stakeholders happy with them making money and when they are fat and happy with increasing money value in their portfolios, Satya will be happy because this will allow him to remain as CEO.

I think Businesses will have the "subscription only" model for Windows 12 and home users will be spared from subscription, but I think regular home users might get the "subscription only" model in Windows 13 if there is a Windows 13. And I expect there will be. Pure speculation on my part, but I knew the direction Microsoft was going to take when I first saw Windows 8. And I was correct back then. And I may be correct again in the future.

There will also be a lot of AI hooked into Windows 12. So if all this comes to fruition, you may dislike or hate Windows 12 so much, you just might grow to like or love Windows 11......a lot. And for those who say as much as they dislike Windows, they will stay with Windows and will never stray over to Linux........."never say never" because you just might want or have to. This will depend on how much you like being run over.

I can definitely imagine those things pissing off a lot of people, but honestly I agree with you that I've been expecting Microsoft Accounts to be required since Windows 8. The difference is that it doesn't bother me too much. I already have an Office 365 subscription. So I wasn't really fighting this and doing the whole "use a local account" thing, I used a Microsoft Account specifically to sync data between my Windows Phone and my PC. The only part of what you said that might be a problem for me is the price... if I have to pay per PC to keep Windows 12 going, then I might not be able to afford to run Windows on all my systems, though maybe I could afford it on one system. I am hoping I get at least one free Windows 12 subscription along with Office 365, but if not it may be the reason I switch. I just don't know if I can afford to pay for Windows on top of paying for Office. Then again, by the time Windows 12 becomes necessary, I might have a job and be able to pay for it. Well, let's hope so. LOL.

And what is so weird to me is that people are angry when Microsoft does this, but they run Android and are fine with Google doing back in 2010 what Microsoft is only slowly starting to do to keep up. I mean, what do people think the price of the convenience of the Google Store is? Why do you think Android phones are almost useless without a Google account? Have people not noticed that Google is pushing all their services in your face on Android and making it a pain to use other things? But no, they only get mad when Microsoft does it. It's hard to be mad at Microsoft, at least for me, when I look at what Google is getting away with and what is common practice in the software industry nowadays. It's not Microsoft specifically, it's... society, it's our whole system that's broken, IMO.

As for Linux, I'm sorry but I hate it from experience. I've used Linux off and on since the year 2000, and looking at it always makes me appreciate Windows more. It seems like it slowly goes in the same direction as Windows and Mac over time, with GNOME 40, Wayland, and systemd. Sure, you can find distros that don't use that stuff, but at that point they work so differently from mainstream Linux that I might as well be using another OS altogether. The way it works seems to be this... Apple is always the first to do whatever awful tech thing people don't like, Google follows 5 years behind them, Microsoft is 5 years behind Google, mainstream Linux is 5 years behind Microsoft, and alternate operating systems like obscure Linux distros, along with Haiku, BSD or SunOS are 5 years behind Linux. Those are gross generalizations, I know, but it seems like even if you struggle with some obscure operating systems, you can at most manage to stay 15-20 years behind Apple's "leadership" that everyone follows eventually. Apple fanboys aren't wrong when they say Apple is a leader and an innovator that everyone copies, but where I disagree with them is that society and the tech industry should go in the Apple direction. I feel like whatever it is about society that makes Apple's direction appeal to other tech companies and the general population, is a flaw in society that really needs to be corrected at some point, but until it is, everything will keep going where Apple is leading it. I'm not satisfied with just going back to how things were before Apple and living in the past, though. I want to see things genuinely go in a new direction, an innovation that goes in a different direction than Apple while still moving forward rather than looking back.

I don't expect extreme Gamers to move over to linux. They are die hards since they love their games on Windows and I think they will never switch over to Linux. But Valve and Steam games do run on linux for the occasion where someone has a game or two which they really like and can be played on Linux.

I've been using linux distributions since 2013. Settled on Linux Mint and now also dual boot Mint with MX Linux. And I am not a power user. Just a non-technical user in linux who knows enough about both of these distros to not get myself into trouble using them. Most linux distributions are not hard to learn either.

Also, I've used the command line linux Terminal a total of six times in ten years. So there are choices. One just has to look at those choices like a half glass of water. Which means depending on how you see it. Either half empty or half full.

I really don't agree that it's only gamers that need Windows, though. Linux is fine if you are either an advanced user that knows how to make it work, or someone whose needs are so simple that the distro basically meets them out of the box with minimal tweaking. But there are a lot of people in the middle, like professionals that need specific software like Photoshop, AutoCAD, Office, Unreal Engine, etc. For people who need specific software packages for their job, the only options are often Windows or Mac, and sometimes there's only one option. There are a lot of things Windows is still easily capable of that can't be done reliably on Linux, or in some cases can't be done on Linux at all.

I definitely get your point that people should appreciate the choices available, look into them, and not dismiss the idea that they would ever use something, but I think people who have successfully made Linux work for them sometimes underestimate the obstacles to Linux use that professionals who still rely on Windows or Mac actually face. Or the sheer number of inconveniences you have to put up with if you rely on any kind of modern service... for instance, I think Netflix streaming is resolution-capped on Linux, so if you want the best experience, you are stuck with Windows or Mac if you have a very modern system. There are just so many little things that could be a problem.

[BenFenner]

Oh, look who's joined the party.



I totally understand not wanting to switch to Linux (and for sure not macOS) but might I suggest a switch to Windows 7 like the rest of us?
Or just go back to 10 and stay there?

As someone who ran Windows XP SP1 up until 2017 or so with never a malware infection or breach, I don't put any stock in EOL for a MS OS. Just keep running it (assuming you have a great layer of protection upstream).

Windows 7 was peak Windows for me

Windows 2000 for me. That default UI was objectively superior to anything before or after. And the UX was decent.

Hardware support is the only reason I've ever upgraded Windows. When new hardware comes out that I want to use and my version of Windows doesn't support it, I upgrade. I moved to Win95 when CR-ROM came along. I moved to Win98 when 16-bit color was required to run my games and networking was better supported for our multi-PC household. Then Win2k for dual CPU support, CD-RW support, and USB support. Then WinXP for Wi-Fi and better USB support. Then Win7 for TRIM (SSD) support. And here I am. I'm not excited about it. I hate Microsoft with a passion and almost always have. But here I am.

I completely agree that criticism is reasonable, but I don't understand why people simply continue to use it instead of using alternative options.

Because the alternatives are all worse for a power user. I have used Windows from 3.0 onward until 7. It is not great, but it is the best we have for a proper UI (well with a lot of work to get there in XP and even more in 7 but it is possible).
I've used multiple flavors of GNU/Linux as well for over a decade now for real work, and there is no comparison when it comes to the user interfaces. Windows wins by a mile, along with stability, and many other aspects that I value.
I have had to suffer Apple's operating systems from the Macintosh all the way up to today, even in a professional capacity as well, and it is not even worth mentioning. Apple's offerings are atrocious. I can't fathom a power user getting anywhere on those machines. It's been 30+ years and they still don't have pointer acceleration adjustment. Enough said.

And what is so weird to me is that people are angry when Microsoft does this, but they run Android and are fine with Google doing back in 2010 what Microsoft is only slowly starting to do to keep up.

I'll say that firstly I think MS has been gathering more data and for longer than you're making it seem. But also those using Android and complaining about MS (of which I am not one) probably understand the difference between a general-purpose operating system and a purpose-build OS. Their telephone runs a purpose-built OS and there are trade-offs there they may be willing to make that they are not on their general-purpose OSes.

Apple fanboys aren't wrong when they say Apple is a leader and an innovator that everyone copies

Woah, woah, woah. Let's not get carried away. Apple has rarely innovated anything. Nearly everything they do is a copy of an outside innovator. This has been well-known by Apple tech watchers from the very beginning. I think you've been fooled by their slick marketing and public image.

[Night Wing]

Off-topic:
@ Moonchid

Vehicles are not the same as computer operating systems. Here in the USA, we don't have to put in code or whatever to start a vehicle. Unless of course, you're a convicted drunk driver where you have to blow into a device to measure the blood alcohol content in your blood. Over the limit and the vehicle's motor will not start.

Back to "Subscription Fees" & "PC as a Serice".

Back when you were using Windows 7 as your daily driver. I am sure you were using a stand alone version of "Office" where you actually bought it. But lets say you are using Windows 11 as your daily driver now. Lets also say you don't have an old stand alone version of Office (2016) installed on Windows 11 (which you bought back in 2016 as a point of contention).

So if you don't have an old stand alone version of "Office" installed in Windows 11, then I'm sure you are using the Office which comes with Windows 11. And if you are, then you are paying the yearly rental fee to use Office in Windows 11. So technically speaking; in a small way, since you are paying the yearly subscription fee to use Office which comes with Windows 11, you are a "cash cow". And if you do not pay the yearly fee for next year, Microsoft can send an update and lock you out of Office.

Back to Windows 12.

Think back to Windows 95. I think that is when many businesses went to the operating system for their in house computers. Fast forward to Windows 12 as a cloud based operating system which is supposed to be a subscription service if Windows 12 is a "PC as a Service". This means businesses have been using the Windows operating system for 38 years.

Since Windows 95, business and "their employees" have been "ingrained" to use the Windows operating system both at work and at home on their home pc's. Businesses will, speaking just for myself, comply because businesses will view the subscription fee to use Windows 12.......as a cost of doing business. In other words, they will take the easy way out and use the subscription fee as a "tax write off" accounting wise.

Windows 13 (if it comes to pass).

If Windows 13 comes where it is a "PC as a Service" for home users, there will be a lot of angry home uses who will holler to the top of their lungs, cuss out Microsoft, bay at the moon, rant, rave, stamp their feet and to quote from a Rolling Stones song, "blow a 50 amp fuse". But when all is said and done, they will pay the fee, because "they want to take the easy way out". And paying the subscription fee, to them, is the easy way out and beats learning how to use a different operating system whether that be Apple OS or Linux.

[athenian200]

I totally understand not wanting to switch to Linux (and for sure not macOS) but might I suggest a switch to Windows 7 like the rest of us?

Really? Windows 7... in 2023? That was getting pretty long in the tooth 4 years ago. Windows 7 isn't really a great choice for any CPU manufactured after Skylake. I mean, if you have a Haswell system (or older) still running Windows 7, then I guess I can understand that, but slapping it on anything newer is literally guaranteeing you won't get the most out of your hardware. Microsoft didn't add in the stuff Skylake needs to function optimally into the instruction scheduler until Windows 10, and if you're on Alder Lake, a lot of the stuff centered around getting the most out of the E-cores requires Windows 11. I guess a lot of people just want the nostalgia and the feeling of privacy and don't care about these things, but I'm far from satisfied with the notion of trying to run Windows 7 on modern hardware and settling for having no DX12 and having to make do with something that isn't designed for modern hardware. Not to mention lots of software is starting to drop support for Windows 7 and it's getting to be as much of a pain to run as XP was in 2015 or so.

As someone who ran Windows XP SP1 up until 2017 or so with never a malware infection or breach, I don't put any stock in EOL for a MS OS. Just keep running it (assuming you have a great layer of protection upstream).

Well, it really depends on what you're doing. I still have a Windows XP laptop (256MB of RAM) that I use for old printers and reading floppy drives, but I don't connect it to the Internet. If you need support for legacy hardware or software that isn't supported by a newer version of Windows, then older versions of Windows have their uses. But by no means should you trust such an OS as a daily driver, and you definitely shouldn't be putting it on new hardware. Just my two cents. I mean, obviously people are going to do whatever they want to do, and we still support Windows 7, but I think recommending it isn't a very responsible or adult reaction to Windows 11 sucking. Someone saying "I'm still sticking with Windows 7!" at this point makes me picture a child holding their breath until they turn blue hoping their parents will give in.

I'll say that firstly I think MS has been gathering more data and for longer than you're making it seem. But also those using Android and complaining about MS (of which I am not one) probably understand the difference between a general-purpose operating system and a purpose-build OS. Their telephone runs a purpose-built OS and there are trade-offs there they may be willing to make that they are not on their general-purpose OSes.

Yeah, I definitely understand what you're saying here. I'm glad you're not one of those people. I think you may have a good insight into why those people think the way they do, but I still don't think very highly of their reasoning. If people had pushed back harder against what Android and iOS were doing in the first place, this type of SaaS stuff may have never trickled down into the PC space in the first place. But once it got a foothold on mobile, and mobile became the dominant computing paradigm, it was inevitable that we'd see things go this way with everything else, and acting shocked by it shows some degree of naivete.

Woah, woah, woah. Let's not get carried away. Apple has rarely innovated anything. Nearly everything they do is a copy of an outside innovator. This has been well-known by Apple tech watchers from the very beginning. I think you've been fooled by their slick marketing and public image.

Well, I will admit ignorance on the Apple front. I don't know anything about the companies Apple copies from, I just know that all the other popular ones tend to play "follow the leader" with Apple, and the people who like Apple keep saying they are the future, and unfortunately it seems like they are always proven right. I'm definitely not a fan of theirs, and I have never used an Apple product, but I have noticed that it seems like everyone else copies them and follows their lead, and I don't like the trends they seem to lead. It could well be that there are outside innovators Apple is copying that are less well-known, but usually whenever Apple adopts it, that's when it becomes mainstream and everyone else plays catch-up. That might well be because they are the ones that have the slickest marketing, to the point that it convinces their competitors they need to match them. You definitely raise some good points here.

[Basilisk-Dev]

Off-topic:
There is Windows 10 LTSC for people who want to use Windows 10 even after support for the mainstream consumer Windows 10 release ends. It's basically an ESR version of Windows 10. It's a bit difficult to obtain a license but it is possible.

I'm using it for my Windows build VM for Basilisk and have no intention from switching.

Honestly if it gets to a point that Basilisk requires a tool that only runs on Windows 11 or above I will likely drop Windows builds entirely.

[Lucio Chiappetti]

As for Linux, I'm sorry but I hate it from experience. I've used Linux off and on since the year 2000, and looking at it always makes me appreciate Windows more. It seems like it slowly goes in the same direction as Windows and Mac over time, with GNOME 40, Wayland, and systemd. Sure, you can find distros that don't use that stuff, but at that point they work so differently from mainstream Linux that I might as well be using another OS altogether.

Sorry to hear that.
Of course I come from a different environment ... using Linux since the 2000s (mainly for decreasing hardware costs) but coming from previous Unix and even previous stuff (IBM VM/CMS and VAX VMS). So not only I'm not afraid of the command line, but cannot live without. My only limited experience was Windows NT (there was at the time a pun that WNT was one letter behind VMS, like HAL and IBM ) also in early 2000s. I've been using Mac as a glorified typewriter (with MS Word) in the '90s. From recent frequentation of an Italian Ubuntu forum I realize that the expectations of a perhaps younger and less professional ("home") audience are different ... they seem to confuse the OS with a specific desktop environment ... sort of when the press talks of "technology expertise" meaning "familiarity with a specific smartphone UI" ... I've never left X11 for Wayland, and hope to be able not to do it while I'm alive, I junked KDE (and GNOME) in favour of FVWM long time ago ... I still have to get enough familiarity with systemd being used to init.d (but it's a bit a minor inconvenience like the old BSD vs SysV quarrel since one has to play with it rather seldom) ... essentially I'm the type of "your OS your way" and do not like being forced to follow the whims of some more or less obscure developer, vendor or distro repacker for what concerns the daily UI. Some of my colleagues decided to move from Linux to Apple ... but they said I won't like it!

[Night Wing]

@ athenian200

I get that you do not care for linux because linux makes you appreciate Windows more. But I am the opposite. I loved Windows 7 and speaking for myself, I thought Windows 7 was the best Windows operating system ever made. Still think that after seeing Windows 8, 8.1, 10 and now since 11 is out.

But Windows 8 was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. That is when I decided to "learn" how to use a linux distro. When I found Mint, this was the easiest linux distro for me to learn. It reminded me of "working" with Windows 7 and I think this is why I went over to linux easily and permanenty.

As for the Google mention and Android, I do not own a smartphone so Apple and Android do not come into play for me. I own an old fashioned flip style clam shell cellphone. And the phone is not connected to the internet and I set it up with no voicemail account. And when I do carry it with me, it is not turned on. I only turn it on when I need to make an out going call.

Back to Windows 11.

When Microsoft sends out an update for it on Patch Tuesday, if the update causes a "small problem" deemed by Microsoft, it might not get fixed immediately and you'll have to wait till the "next" Patch Tuesday which could be four weeks away.

This is handled differently in linux and I'll give you an example.

In MX Linux, there are "three main" flavors in Xfce. They are 64, 386 and 64 ahs. I run the main 64 version. One Saturday, I had five updates and three of them were for "ahs" which I thought was odd. Two of the updates installed and three of them did not. Specifically the "ahs" ones. So I went over to the MX forums site and sure enough, the developers on there admitted they made a "big" mistake. They said they were working on it, would be fixed asap and an update would be sent out to correct the error.

Then Sunday rolled around, the next day and I had more updates and the "ahs" updates were withdrawn and the three correct updates for my 64 version were installed. Keep in mind this was over a Saturday and the next day Sunday. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I don't think Microsoft is going to correct their update errors that fast.

Now I'm not an advanced user in Linux, but I'm also not a person whose needs are so simple any distro will do right out of the box. You mentioned Photoshop. I used Photoshop in Windows 7. But it does not run in Linux. So I looked for an alternative and found Gimp. Gimp is different, but it met my needs.

Some people say Windows 11 has Office in it and then they say, "I gots to have Office". Office does not run in linux. Libre Office is an alternative and a good alternative if you do not share files and I do not share files. If Office is the main reason to not use linux, then someone is being held hostage by Office which would prevent them from trying a linux distro.

Yet in the computer repair shop where I volunteer at, these same people will come and complain a Windows update in Windows 11 has made their Office software "not work right". And it usually is an update in Windows 11. So we tell the people they will have to wait until Microsoft sends an update to fix the previous update which broke something.

In closing. There is no perfect operating system, but speaking for myself, an operating system or distro, if it does what I need, want and like without aggravating me or frustrating me, then that is what I gravitate to. And Linux met my needs, wants and likes.

[Falna]

Another main issue I have with Windows 11 is the absolutely stupid hardware requirements Windows 11.

Top of my reasons for avoiding W11 too. Still hoping that gets reversed before W10 EOL, or that there are enough of us still using it for MS to extend its life.

I can't understand why people complain about Win 11, but on the other side they refuse to learn other operating system... I didn't accept MS' activities with Windows 10 and decided to go another way.

Some of us do use other operating systems, though they have their problems too. But on my main machine I have no choice. I run several essential applications that are Windows-only with no equivalent alternatives.

Windows 2000 for me.

Got to agree with that - I ran from soon after it was launched until days before its EOL.

[suzyne]

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.

[athenian200]

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.

Off-topic:
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. Now, I personally wouldn't use this approach on a machine that can run Windows 11, but if Windows 10 reaches EOL, I still have perfectly good hardware that is fast enough for what I want to do, and Windows 11 isn't supported, well... there you go.

A lot of perfectly serviceable Core i7 machines that are still able to compete with today's Core i3s can't run Windows 11, so I get the feeling trying to run 10 past EOL will be a very popular thing to try and do.