upvote
There are two major problems with modern Windows.

The first is coercion. Installing without a Microsoft (Outlook) account is more and more difficult. An attentive steward of Windows would allow older gui themes (xp, Win7 Aero, etc.) to be applied for the nostalgic. And there would be an easy control to disable all Copilot integration. Microsoft is coercive towards their customers with these and other actions.

The second is incompetence. The Windows update process is intrusive, lengthy, and prone to repeatedly bricking unlucky PCs. Linux updates are far more pleasant.

These are big problems, and I agree, it will take great institutional change to curb these abusive tendencies. I don't know if they can.

reply
>incompetence

Man..., its 2026 and just yesterday I did "Update and Shutdown" only for it to "Update and Restart" instead. It would be funny if it wasnt that sad..

reply
Most updates need to reboot once or more, but the final one should have shutdown.

Now, don't get me wrong, what the hell is so special about Windows that it needs to reboot for every little update operation?

reply
It doesn't, I have installed many Windows updates that didn't require a reboot. Even ones I expected to need an update, like an update to a graphics driver. Screen just went blank, then came back a second later.

AFAICT it's only updates to things that run at startup time that require a reboot, probably because NTFS doesn't allow you to write to a file that's currently opened (as opposed to nearly every Linux filesystem, which handles that just fine: the process that has the file opened continues to see the "old" file, while any that open it after the write will see the "new" file — but NTFS, probably due to internal architecture, can't handle that and so you have to reboot to change files that background services are using).

reply
Can‘t replace files that are in-use and that includes running programs or loaded DLLs. Linux can, it keeps the inode and only actually deletes upon termination of last access.
reply
The fact that Microsoft are doing zero nostalgia marketing is baffling to me.

Put a clippy skin on copilot and people would probably install it voluntarily.

reply
If you have two candidate ui designs you pick the best of the two. If you have an established ui and a candidate the new design needs to be dramatically better. It has to scream superiority. If it isn't that you are just ruining ux.

I install Gimp one time. I like to casual draw on autopilot, usually while doing something else, talking, watching a movie, listening to a podcast etc. For some reason half the icons were missing and the existing set was replaced with the hipster horrifying flat single color monstrosities. This would have been a waste of their time if it was only an option for no one who wants this some place buried deep in the settings where it would only clutter the nesaserily complex options.

With MS it feels more like intentionally trolling the user

The best spot for the applications sub menu is to not make it a sub menu. The second best is to leave it wherever the fuck it was before. I want to struggle remembering what an application was called and wonder why they are organized so poorly. (Not by file Association) In stead they have me wonder where they even are???

reply
I'm actually not sure what you're saying about GIMP. I mean - I understand the frustration, the "button groups" or whatever they did to declutter things made things (imo) worse; I don't think it's a good default.

BUT

I don't actually understand your sentences for the most part. I really had to work to glean what you were talking about.

I'm not trying to be insulting here; sometimes I write in inscrutable ways too. But - could you reword a few things so I know what you're trying to say?

reply
I've never been sentenced to repeating myself. I'm sure people normally hope for improvements in silence without informing me. Thanks!

The general point was that "Improvement" that ruin muscle memory usually aren't. It should be the most basic UI design principle.

One should be able to instinctively click on the Gmail icon while focused on the task at hand. If the icon isn't where one expects it to be you are no longer doing email things. Same goes for having the user search for the inbox inside the application. If they can't find it they are unproductive and feel dumb but they aren't to blame. Some bad designer came up with the brilliant idea to call it "all mail". The inbox is expected to live at the top of the menu. You can't improve it.

It's such basic stuff. It's like someone used your tools or your kitchen and put everything in a new spot. Eh, I mean the wrong spot.

I could give 1000 example inside windows but it seems everyone is trolling their users. They all want to create the new and improved slashdot, now without threaded discussions! - Hurray!

reply
> This would have been a waste of their time if it was only an option for no one who wants this some place buried deep in the settings where it would only clutter the nesaserily complex options.

I'm not sure what this sentence means. Perhaps you already knew that Gimp's monochrome icons can be replaced by colorful ones by going to the Gimp settings under Theme -> Icon Theme, and unchecking the "Use symbolic icons if available" checkbox. That may be what you meant by "some place buried deep in the settings". But if you didn't, at least now you know how to get the colorful icons back.

The reason I'm making this comment, though, is to contrast it with Windows. A comment by chasil, left shortly after your own comment, said that "[a]n attentive steward of Windows would allow older gui themes (xp, Win7 Aero, etc.) to be applied for the nostalgic." Gimp has done just that: in Icon Theme, you can choose the "Default" or "Legacy" icon theme, so if you got used to the older icons, you can get them back. And you can still use the newer icon set if you like, but get the icons' colors back by unchecking a (confusingly-named, the name definitely needs improvement) checkbox. Windows doesn't have any built-in way to get the older themes back; if you want Windows 11, or even 10, to look like Windows 7 or XP or whatever version you trained your visual memory on for years, then it takes third-party software to make that possible. (And it may not even be possible, I haven't checked).

When even one of the most infamous-for-confusing-UI pieces of open-source software (I mean Gimp, of course) is doing a better job of providing good UI than Microsoft is, Microsoft has a problem.

reply
There's another pressure: each major release has to look different from the last one, otherwise it feels like a minor release. In this regard XP, Vista and 7 were successful. 8 also succeeded here, but at the expense of usability.

It doesn't have to use different window layouts, just differently themed decorations. Changing the default wallpaper is a simple way to do it.

reply
I would say the primary reason that windows still is acceptable is familiarity and games. Nothing else.

Non tech people don't care about control panel etc. they just go through the pain of entering the WiFi password. Done.

- gamers. Double click install - go on. I know very few gamers that have moved to Linux.

And corporate. Most normies that I know DON'T have own computers. Everything can be done via smartphone these days.

reply
With games it's performance. I have a graphics card, I'm uninterested in losing %s off it for running on Linux.

It's doomsday if Linux starts outperforming Windows. If SteamOS for PC still required me to dual boot - which I already do - but guaranteed is get 100% windows performance or better, then that would be the official end.

It's not clear to me this couldn't happen either: I am very willing to hand over the entire PC configuration if the promise I get in return is "your games will run as fast as it is possible to run them".

reply
Depending on which game, and which month it is measured in, Linux and Windows have been on par or trading blows for performance. Last I saw the performance had swung back slightly in favour of Windows though (seemed they started fixing some of the issues they had).

When you think about it, it is kind of insane that Linux can match or outperform windows when it has an extra layer translating the system calls though. And for many of us, who don't play competitive twitchy shooters on a high level, the performance of gaming on Linux is perfectly adequate currently. I played Baldur's Gate 3 on Linux earlier this year for example, and it maxed out the frame rate of my monitor.

reply
IIRC from some discord threads, some games already perform better on Linux than on Windows. We are getting there. The only moat left is kernel anti cheat for games like Battlefield. I’m just fine if those stay on windows actually.
reply
Windows compatibility is pretty overrated at this point. There are a bevy of programs we use commercially that are quite old that just don’t work on 11, and not well on 10. Compatibility mode only gets you do far.
reply
> 1) the massive backwards compatibility

Greatest strength. Greatest papercut.

reply