upvote
To bring it back to Xbox a little. I recently picked up an Xbox one X, the late performance boost to their last generation. Firstly, the performance to price ratio is brilliant nowadays, when you get title at native 4K it is a really neat little thing to see.

It can throw around a decent amount for a machine that is almost a decade old... except Halo 2 anniversary, the framerate is cooked on that one but does resolve a native 4K image, so there is that.

But the system software quality is absolute rubbish. I have never seen any other system just trip over itself for just random reasons, it can be UI hang ups, installation issues, network connection issues, that it is constantly pinging their servers just to do basic things, endless random crash outs or any manner of similar problems. I never had that issue on their previous consoles or any other console for that matter. I mean once the software is going in a straight line, you can see the magic but the amount of junk to get to there is comical.

an aside, the only game I can consistently have fail on Switch and PS4 nowadays is Quake 2 when you use their own hand picked mods, and yes, Microsoft owns Bethesda who releases it. Something is very wrong in Redmond. Yeah MS has always had a history of software quality problems but this feels very different. It is like they are just stacking abstraction layers on top of others and ending up with a rat-king of technology debt. Not just that but there seems to be a vibe of just general complacency, that is dragging it all down.

Oh and their online web potart is some of the slowest most bug riddled trash I have ever seen online.

reply
It is strange to me that people are re-discovering this today, in 2026. Microsoft has always been half-baked, even in the 80s and 90s. Heck, my parents basically raised me (20+ years ago) by running a business fixing problems with Microsoft products for their clients.
reply
I was able to take a 25 year break from Microsoft, from 2000 to 2025. Yet I was drawn back in because my son wanted to play Minecraft. This was the worst account process of any system ever invented, as far as I can tell. Plus in 2025 I had some interesting clients that are large corporations that use Microsoft as their core IT practice. The escape to the relative simplicity and consistency of AWS interfaces, from MS land, was the best part of the IT experience with that client. (With how much I've moaned and complained about AWS over the years, that last sentence is the most damning thing I can possibly say about Microsoft's products.)
reply
Just pirate it. Minecraft is really easy to pirate if you don't want to play multiplayer, or want to play on pirate-compatible servers (which is one boolean flag in the official server configuration file and doesn't require a pirated server).

Make sure to get Java Edition. The other one is just an ad-riddden slopfest where they also ban you if you say swear words.

reply
That is my plan, I have (had, you have to let it go) an old account from when it was a just username, never bothered "updating" it to the email account, I tried to convert when Microsoft said they were dumping all the old accounts, but the process was not working and I quickly decided I don't actually want a Microsoft account. At which point I decided that if I ever wanted to play again I would just do so sans account.

Which raises an interesting question, If I legally have a license for the game but they shut off the license servers, is it actually copyright infringement? (or piracy as people like to call it because copyright infringement sounds lame)

reply
They will certainly argue, and win, by saying that for legal mumbo jumbo reasons, you only have permission to play it in the exact ways they say you can, and if you already bought the game, but they say you can't play, then it's illegal to play.

Which is why coming at this from a legal perspective a farce. Most of the world is like this, actually. You can assume that if some action brings money to large corporations then it's legal and if it takes away their actual or potential revenue then it's illegal. Go with what you feel is morally correct.

reply
The point of the account was multiplayer, unfortunately. Wanted a locked down account to play the game with a closed group of friends.

Ended up on Minecraft Education on the computer, eventually.

reply
Closed group of friends works fine in offline mode (pirate friendly mode).
reply
If you can get a group of other parents to also pirate...

Not really in the cards, though I can appreciate your dedication to pirate advocacy.

reply
The referenced config setting is apparently literally just whether to have the server authenticate accounts with Microsoft, so pirate and nonpirate players can play together on a server with checking off.
reply
This is basically my experience.

I switched to Mac with the Intel change around...2006 maybe? Converted my entire family.

I personally switched to various flavors of linux around 2016-2017 because I wanted more hardware options.

Eventually, my son got into gaming and eventually we let him get an Alienware laptop maybe 2-3 years ago. Then my wife had to get one for work this year. It's like nothing has improved in 20 years.

reply
what a shame; I only played minecraft when it was an alpha, and the .jar file ran just fine on my linux machine at the time.
reply
There were problems, but they were problems of a distinct and different kind.

Back in the early 1990s you'd get Microsoft Office from the store, as a box containing 10 floppy disks. And they had to put a lot of effort into testing it, because patching was impossible. And of course it was fully offline. Perpetually licensed, with paid upgrades.

The problems were instead things like "this notionally multi-user OS is just a single-user OS with a decorative login screen" and "any application can crash the entire OS" and "spreadsheets auto-run macro viruses" and things like that.

reply
'always online' has created a whole new set of buggy from a lot of companies. For example cyberpunk is NOW a playable game. Launch date was a very mixed bag. 'fix it after launch' ugh.
reply
> cyberpunk is NOW a playable game

I never had problems with cyberpunk but I think I know why: I built a new PC right around its release and it was good enough to play it smoothly on 4K medium or HD ultra.

When I checked to see what 4K ultra looked like, the graphics latency caused a bunch of scripting to fall apart and the game glitched really bad.

IIRC the console release was notorious for bugs, so I assume consoles were not performant enough to run the game buttery smooth nor could they be easily upgraded.

reply
I guess it’s surprising because how ubiquitous their products are. You’d expect them to be of better quality considering everyone is using MS software one way or another.
reply
Their products/services are ubiquitous not because they are good but because they got where they are today by abusing monopoly power and shady tactics.

On the business side, with M365, they use lock-in tactics and extremely aggressive bundle pricing. The only competitor is Google Workspace, and it's missing features you get bundled with something like an E5 license. So your choice becomes: just pay Microsoft $60/user/month and get Identity, Office, Intranet, MDM, EDR, DLP, ZTNA, the works. Or, buy Google Workspace and then also buy Slack, Okta, JamF (or Jumpcloud or similar), some ZTNA product, etc. and you are now at double or more the price of an E5 license.

On the consumer side with Windows, they secured their monopoly via internet explorer, and predatory OEM contracts to prevent machines being sold with anything else. Now Windows is just an ad-delivery network disguised as an OS. People don't leave Windows because its still, through those shady backroom deals, the default OS on every off the shelf PC, and because of existing software.

Microsoft has zero incentive to build a good product now, they already won. People use it because they have to not because they want to.

reply
Don't agree at all. Microsoft originally hoped that other vendors office type offerings would be good enough, they weren't (lotus notes) so Microsoft did it themselves.

Bill gates also understood the value great programmers. The whole business revolved around this premise. this was different from other software companies at the time. Read the likes of Gabe Newell and Joel spolsky said about their time there. It was in a league of it's own.

There are a lot of great things we got from Microsoft, a zero fee platform to target, a platform that would run on what ever cobbled together pc parts you threw at it. An unbelievable attention to backwards compatibility. Compare that to what we have now in the app store and play store.

reply
> by abusing monopoly power and shady tactics

> Google Workspace, and it's missing features

Sounds like Microsoft got there by having the features.

reply
>extremely aggressive bundle pricing

I mean it's a good deal. As you say, when a company goes above a certain size, it does not make sense to pay for GSuite + Slack + Zoom + RMM/MDM + Zscaler

Windows is still good for gaming PCs, and it will now handle and update itself reliably. No I don't need to hear anecdotes, I work in the IT desktop space. IT janitor monkey if you will. There is no way an enterprise will convert laptops to linux or chromebook.

You see it as malicious, but well, even Google have trouble in this space. Because it is hard.

reply
I suppose the argument is in reverse. They are so ubiquitous, they don’t really have to be good anymore to capture the market.
reply
And they got that position of dominance more via shady deals and sketchy practices than by producing excellent software. Microsoft has done some good engineering, but that's not what made them what they are.
reply
I disagree. Microsoft software was some of the best. Maybe not because their quality was excellent but because their competition was easily worse.
reply
I haven't opened Office in years.
reply
They haven't supported Office in years. You're only supposed to use the web app version now. And it's not called Office any more, it's called Copilot 365. Not joking.
reply
They haven't added a feature I needed since 2003.
reply
Well yeah, but I've been involved with like 6 universities in different European countries and all of them use MS email.
reply
>considering everyone is using MS software one way or another.

I don't think I've used a MS product in at least a decade. At least that I was aware of.

Edit: did some research and I have used LinkedIn. Other than that, nothing.

reply
No GitHub at all?
reply
Product quality has nothing to do with ubiquity. Its all about shady business deals that locks you into products where the migration cost is much higher.
reply
Microsoft products are no longer ubiquitous. That's an early 2010s view. In 2026 most clients are running Android, followed by iOS, followed by Mac, and use Google Docs for their office work. Windows is only used on a per-company basis. If your company uses it it uses it, otherwise it doesn't.
reply
Only small companies here (North EU - Sweden) use Mac + Gsuite + Slack + Zoom as a stack.

Companies over 20 staff are on Windows laptops + Office 365 E3 or E5.

Android and iOS? Sure on the phones...

What "clients" are you talking about? Edit: Re-reading I think you mean clients as in general computers, not business clients. Yes, more of the world is on phones but that is due to cost and society (ipad/iphone kids or third world on android). Real work is all done on PCs/Macs.

Schools are on chromebooks for the kids and Windows or Mac for teachers.

reply
You got it mostly right. It's Android, then iOS, then Windows. It is still the number one PC OS, in terms of active users and sales. MacOS is a distant second. Of course in 2026, if you want to make money as a developer selling directly to consumers, your best targets are probably iOS and macOS. Android and Windows are rife with users who'll never buy anything and pirates.
reply
You're confusing number of people with percentages. There's still a large share of people who'll pay to use software on windows or android provided your software is good enough. This wrong impression comes from the fact that many users are from 3rd world countries who can't afford anything else. Steam made their entire business selling stuff on windows. And not just proprietary software. Many blender and godot addons are paid and nobody complains. Apart from developing software, where linux and osx are far ahead, in terms of industry software such a autodesk, solidworks, rhino, flstudio, etc, windows is THE platform you want to target of you are planning on monetization. And I'm saying this as a exclusive linux user of 3 years. You know who won't pay money? Linux users. Not out of lack of it, but mostly because of principle of FOSS software. And yes, I'd rather use a inferior FOSS alternative than a slightly better proprietary one
reply
Everyone I see who doesn't use Linux uses a Mac.
reply
well that only means there's a lot of people you do not see. The large majority, according to every available stat.
reply
> ... considering everyone is using MS software one way or another.

This used to be the case when Apple was in dire straits and MS abused their monopoly position to gain 95% of browsers market share. Grim days.

But those days are thankfully long done and there are plenty of people who are completely Microsoft-free.

The one thing people are using one way or another is Linux, because it's now in just about everything. Even those in the Apple ecosystem, with an iPhone and Mac computers, very probably have a Linux router and Linux TV at home.

The number of devices in the world running one version of Linux or another outnumber Windows devices by something like 10 to 1. Maybe more.

Microsoft is a despicable company producing turds since forever. I hate them and the crap they produce with a passion since the DOS days.

As the saying goes: the day Microsoft shall produce something that doesn't suck is the day they'll start selling vacuum cleaners.

reply
Google of the 2020s is the new Microsoft of the 2010s.
reply
They're ubiquitous because everyone else fucked up during the 80's and 90's charging too much for everything. MS was affordable. It's really just Apple gaining economy of scale by manufacturing in China and Linux being free while being higher quality that make MS look bad.

Also MS stuff has always been slop. Hate their business practices too. But without Linux we'd be choosing between MS, Apple and Oracle Solaris or something...

reply
Since some time around 2024, the problems started to grow way more numerous than they already were; the workarounds started to be disallowed; and more broken software started to be pushed as necessary for basic functionality. People were adapted to a certain level of breakage, but are seeing a different one.

Last time I remember them doing something similar was on the last days of XP / earlier Vista time. But it wasn't so bad at the time.

reply
I remember that back in the mid 80s the Application group was not happy about the quality of work so someone circulated a memo about software quality, which I read from Steven Sinorfsky’s blogs. Adding NT on top of it, I’d say they definitely treat software quality a lot more serious than today.

I think they completely let it go when they laid off the testers and let users pay $$ to be testers, starting from 2010s perhaps. Maybe earlier.

reply
This is why Microsoft is good, there is an entire industry around fixing their nonsense. They are being a job creator!
reply
A very very limited defense of Microsoft and their whole "support vendor" "ecosystem": if you are selling a complex product, there is value in having a robust knowledge base of known problems with known solutions, and a huge base of people who know all the right workflows. A buggier product that's well known and understood is maybe even preferable to a less buggy product with poorly understood failure modes. At least back in the heyday of the NT kernel times, it seemed like there were "MVP"s or whatever that knew the right way to do everything.

(Not that I would know, I don't touch Microsoft's shit with a 10-foot-pole)

reply
I remember windows 2000 being pretty rock solid. I used it as my gaming os for years while folks struggled with windows me and windows xp (IIRC, xp did eventually become pretty good)
reply
XP and 7 were only good because it was based off of 2000/NT.
reply
Literally everything that came after Windows Me both in the consumer and server space is based on NT, to this day. So I'm not sure this argument weighs much.

P.S. My personal opinion is that Windows could be a great OS but MS keeps intentionally saddling it with more and more shit in the name of getting more from the user, instead of giving more to the user.

reply
The kernel is solid, its all the userspace software where they are fumbling hard.
reply
The kernel is okish. But compared to Linux it is surprisingly bad at a number of things. Handling lots of tiny files in huge directory trees is much slower on Windows than Linux for example. I dont know if that is due to NTFS vs ext4/btrfs/xfs, or if it is some broader issue in the NT kernel.

Some other things have been baffling over the years (but I belive they are now at least somewhat solved). For example in Windows 7 and older Windows would spend tens of seconds on "installing drivers" for a USB stick every time a new stick was inserted (or even an old stick inserted into a new port). I don't remember seeing this on Windows 10 (or 11), but I barely used those.

But yes, compared to the userspace the kernel is way less jank. (Like how Windows Updates takes minutes to run to conclude that there are updates, and dozens of minutes to install them, while pacman -Syu on Arch can be done in second if there are no updates, and maybe 2-4 minutes in the worst case of a kernel update with dkms modules being rebuilt.)

reply
At least it has async I/O, unlike Linux.
reply
not sure if I'm missing something, `select` seems to work just fine on my machine
reply
but `select` is not async I/O
reply
> I remember windows 2000 being pretty rock solid.

Windows NT (including Windows 2000) was considered to be a workstation OS by Microsoft. From Windows XP on, the NT-based Windows operating systems (except for the server ones) were targeted to consumers.

reply
I would argue that Microsoft had a solid run for some years in the middle where their software was pretty good quality. I think it started with Windows 2000 and certainly lasted through the XP era. Windows 7 was pretty decent too. Their operating system was straight up trash before win2k and has been in steady decline for some years now. It doesn't surprise me that younger people are only now (re-)discovering that Microsoft operating systems are bad.
reply
> Microsoft has always been half-baked, even in the 80s and 90s. Heck, my parents basically raised me (20+ years ago) by running a business fixing problems with Microsoft products for their clients.

I don’t see that as support for the claim that Microsoft’s products were half-baked in the 80s and 90s.

If Linux had sufficient market penetration in small business, I bet you could run a successful business fixing problems with Linux products, even today.

(It may be a bit of a stretch but you could even argue Amazon is making serious money supporting big companies with their Linux problems)

reply
counterpoint: in my experience, the low level Windows OS primitives are less buggy than low level MacOS primitives.

They're weird to this unix-head, but generally not as buggy as in MacOS.

But I don't think it contradicts your point. This is just a rare exception to the true general rule.

reply
Windows 2000,XP,7 may not have been perfect, but they were leagues better than the state of the art today.
reply
That isn't true. Microsoft has made some genuinely good software over the years.
reply
Like what
reply
As someone else stated earlier, the NT kernel is actually great.

I find Windows 10 and 11 really good once you tweak it a bit and remove some cruft and tweak regedit/GPO settings. Both for modern software. Not to talk about backwards compatibility, Steam games from 2009 run just fine. Windows is also the standard for online games with anti-cheat. Also, for companies, Excel is a must. Yes, still is.

The whole ecosystem of AD+GPO+ Exchange since 2000 is unparalleled, Novell had something like AD but AD won. That continues with Office 365 where it's not just an office package. It is Identity/accounts/SSO (Entra), MDM (Intune), EDR/"antivirus", Storage (OneDrive), Sharepoint (docs + storage), Teams (Slack + Zoom).

You can buy Okta, Zoom, Slack, Gsuite, an EDR, an MDM but at that point you are paying a lot more for your stack...

I understand if you are a smaller company, then Gsuite + Slack and Zoom is a good choice. But go over 100 people and it starts to not make sense.

I also hear developers liking their IDEs, both full VS and VS Code.

/IT admin

reply
> Steam games from 2009 run just fine.

I'd say somewhat fine depending on the title, they broke a lot of backward compatibility recently

> You can buy Okta, Zoom, Slack, Gsuite, an EDR, an MDM but at that point you are paying a lot more for your stack...

I'd also say that's where they won, because it looks like an attractive option for the executive and people in power who can purchase these.

As if you're asking me, sure it's cheaper but these MS products are nowhere near as good as any of the alternatives you listed and you'd have to factor the productivity loss.

It's kind of a cheap all-in buffet, sure it's cheap but quality isn't there.

reply
The NT kernel was actually an IBM project, which got divorced from IBM because of contract stuff and Microsoft got to keep a copy. It grew out of VMS which was a heavyweight OS for DEC VAXen, which IBM acquired.
reply
That is not correct at all.

Part of the revisionist history these days is making IBM out the be hero that was crushed by Microsoft but nothing could be further from the truth. IBM was the lumbering giant that evaluated developers by lines of code produced, had 14 levels of management, and wanted to protect their hardware interests more than anything. Microsoft hated working with them because they sucked. OS/2 was so buggy that the first patch was almost as big as the entire original install.

reply
Well, somewhat.

It has been a while since I read a book on NT kernel - "Showstopper!: The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT and the Next Generation at Microsoft"

NT kernel was "supposed" to run OS/2 apps and Windows apps. But the NT kernel is of MS making, NOT IBM.

The connection to VAX/VMS is due to MS hiring Dave Cutler, who worked there before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler

reply
deleted
reply
No. You are thinking of the ibm Mach-kernel “workplace OS” which descended from the os/2 interaction once IBM and Microsoft broke up.

NT was entirely a Microsoft project. They hired the prism team from DEC and started completely from scratch.

Mach and microkernels were hot at one point despite having many issues with performance.

reply
Spider solitaire
reply
Here's a list of MS software: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_software

You cannot find a single one that was good, or better than whatever was the alternative at the time?

reply
I actually went into reading this thinking I'd agree with you that "yeah that's such hyperbole they must have made something good", and to my shock the good things they have shipped they eventually ruined.

Examples: Edge (bloated with ads and Copilot), Office (now a subscription, hasn't evolved, annoying integration with copilot), Skype (dead), Halo (virtually dead), Doom (studio gutted), Visual Studio Code (locked down marketplace, replaced plugins with their own, now a giant GitHub copilot ad), Flight Simulator (massive regression with 2024)

reply
Looked through it. I'm only considering things while they owned it. For example, Github was pretty good until Microsoft made them migrate to Azure. Uptime has been bad since.

Several of the games are good, but those were mostly made by game studios they own (or later bought). Those are not really part of the core Microsoft culture.

Old versions of Office (pre-ribbon UI) were perfectly usable (if you ignore the years of Clippy, or you disabled that). But in recent years, not.

VS Code was good but it has been getting worse. Every new release is 90% AI features rather than useful things. And it is an open source project anyway, so they aren't the only contributor.

I guess Minesweeper and Solitare are still pretty good (unless they messed them up in Windows 11, which I have stopped using entirely).

But that is pretty damming isn't it? Pretty much everything on that list is bad currently. And the majority was never great.

reply
Evidently you can't, or you would have named it
reply
You're digging yourself a bigger hole. Keep digging.
reply
It really became a problem only with Windows RT attempting to merge mobile OS with desktop. All the non-sensical UX compromises are still from that.

Later they abandoned consumerware after losing the mobile space but that's a different story. Microsoft isn't really a consumer software company any more so there's no point judging it on that basis.

reply
microslop before invention of slop
reply
Azure is also such a mess.

10 redirects to get to the portal, when creating an account/etc. if you do one thing wrong it might just disappear from a tenant or not bind properly or something and then you gotta do it all over again (happened last year)

I just don't know how this is possible, why is everything so broken?

reply
And the official auth URLs are always such random crap that I'm surprised people don't get phished left right and centre.
reply
No owners, no responsability, no incentive to fix it. Ticket grabbers and checklist markers.
reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47616242

This is why.

TLDR: complete incompetence at all levels

reply
I've always felt the elimination of their QA department once the current CEO came in is what really started the decline in quality. Now they are being called Microslop for good reason.
reply
It’s actually impressive just how badly Microsoft fcuked the online experience in Minecraft.

It’s so bad that Occam’s Razor should suggest malice; because an organisation that large and that profitable surely cant be that incompetent at managing the sign in process for the world’s most popular game. Yes here we are.

Back in the early 00s I coined the phrase “everything Microsoft touches turns to shit”. A reverse Midas touch. And unfortunately this is still proving true even into the 2020s

reply
You know whats the cherry on top? I got it working today and you have to download the actual halo 1 campaign as a DLC from inside or outside the MCC game. Even if I got it working yesterday, I'd have to wait for another download. What the 30GB MCC does initially is still a mystery to me.
reply
I looked into it and apparently just the launcher itself is 16GB because it's filled to the brim with extremely oversized videos and sound files, on top of an already overweight base.

All this is supposed to be the peak of game dev prowess. We've had like 50 years of game dev just to evolve to this. It's not just huge launchers - almost everything AAA that's made today feels like it was designed to appear flashy at first glance in some meeting for people who have no idea what they're looking at, while performance, technical features, and the most basic user experience considerations are thrown out of the window.

reply
I mean yeah, just wait until you hear about Ark survival ascended: A game with a single 188gb ucas file extracts itself during update, taking over 400gb just to patch 2gb and then rezips itself.
reply
Why don't you literally just pirate it.

You already own it, so it's not even immoral.

reply
Microsoft is basically Oracle Lite. Oracle is not a software company, it is a government contract fulfilment company with a specialisation in software. Its function is to get money and the engineering department is only an excuse to tick all the boxes on a given contract so it can get paid. Microsoft is the same but also does corporate clients. The rest of us get the scraps.
reply
The bad part is that Microsoft (generally) used to have some of the best QA in the industry, and that was somewhat extended to Xbox. But they laid off their QA team a year or two ago because "AI will change everything!"
reply
> But they laid off their QA team a year or two ago because "AI will change everything!"

They gutted QA in 2014, ending their software development engineer in test positions, and suggesting the developers should test their own code to get velocity.

Subsequent releases were worse than before, and things have compounded since then. Hard to say that laying off the rest of the team made a noticable difference.

reply
Oh thanks for the correction/supplemental information. The gutting you're referring to might be the huge lay offs that I'm thinking of. Possibly conflating the recent AI driven layoffs with those from 12 years ago.
reply
>The bad part is that Microsoft (generally) used to have some of the best QA in the industry

Blame Satya Nadella. He fired testers and turned customers to helpless beta testers.

reply
Yeah based on your comment and the others, it seems he did an initial purge in 2014.

QA doesn't get enough love :(

reply
QA got laid off all decade ago. It's been 10 years of bugs like this weeks breaking boot on Dell's.
reply
Thank you for the correction! I think I was conflating the two (having heard about the one from 2014, and then also hearing about the more recent rounds, and not recognizing they were different)

I've edited my comment to correct this. Cheers!

reply
This definitely does not extend to games. I remember microsoft games having terrible UX over a decade ago (not the game, the account garbage around it).
reply
So, I've had a pretty shit time with Microsoft products over the last ten years, but it wasn't quite as bad 5-7 years ago. Our disagreement on that might be that I'm only in my late 20s, so if you're older than I am, or had newer consoles than I had around that time, I might be a little more tolerant of jank.

But according to the other replies, it seems Microsoft has been purging QA for years now.

reply
I don't have much to add except that people have the idea that this is a new low from microslop thanks to vibe coded Devs but it's really not. There has been for so long a culture of contractors being treated as printers. Then never given a long enough contract to receive any benefits because it is cheaper. Way and repeat. Nothing is fully understood and nobody knows where the focus needs to be. No wonder everything is in a state that it is. Garbage.
reply
There are stories of MS bringing in high school students to code core features on Windows 95/98 as a part of their summer intern programming.

And you wonder why that system would to freeze up when ever you put a CD in and it had to spin up.

They have always tried to cheap out on this stuff.

reply
>> There's something seriously wrong in Redmond.

Is it? People are buying this crap, why should MS spend more money to increase quality? They will receive the same quarterly revenue but with lower profits. Shareholders will not be happy!

reply
>With Microsoft, you will be forced to consume some second-rate engineer's unmanaged,

Or, you'll find the official Microsoft documentation, but will just be out of date, or wrong, or otherwise will not reflect the actual Microsoft product in front of you. It's baffling that people say Linux is hard when I never need to work so hard to get basic things to work as I do with a normal Microsoft product.

reply
It’s like they dump “bad at programming and don’t care about it” juice right into the water supply.
reply
All problems with Microsoft products are design and intent problems, not engineering.
reply
The design and intent are bad, but let’s not discount the large amount of bad engineering too.
reply
There is some brotherhood of coders who will not acknowledge programmers are anything less than perfect. All bugs and errors are the fault of project managers.
reply
If an engineer executes on bad intent and design goals and builds a bad bridge, that's also a bad engineer.

Engineers are not serfs, they have enough income and agency to be responsible for the fruits of their labor.

reply
Is it 2019 again?
reply
Can you explain this to me? I think it's far more 2000s, when we were having debates about whether software engineers were actually engineers, with professional responsibility, or not.
reply
WinUI 3 was upgraded to stable/release when it had literally thousands of outstanding issues, including stuff like [fully replicable] 'using drag and drop causes the program to crash.' That was about the time I started opting out of the entire MS ecosystem after investing decades in it.

I can't even imagine the chaos they must have going on inside for them to be failing the way they are on the outside. I'm also curious what started it. They've never been a pinnacle of engineering, but things went really went downhill hard in more modern times.

reply
> This is my experience with all Microsoft software. The worst thought out, buggy, untested pile of crap.

> There's something seriously wrong in Redmond.

I'd say: There is something seriously wrong with the people buying this shit since over 40 years.

It's not like Microslop products weren't pure utter trash already decades ago. They got worse over time, especially lately with "AI", that's true, but nothing ever changed substantially.

reply
I pretty much doubt it's incompetence.

It all has been looking like a deliberately ill intent for quite a while.

reply
This is my experience with all Microsoft software. The worst thought out, buggy, untested pile of crap.

When you try to save a short-term buck by offshoring your workforce, you end up with long-term problems and brand damage.

And now vibe coding is the new offshoring, so we can make things worse at scale!

reply
When did the offshoring happen, because Microsoft has been bad for a long time. Even in the 90s there were so many BSODs.
reply
Well, the classic BSODs were not all Microsoft's fault, many of them were on 3rd party driver developers.

I think the worse thing here is all the subtle breakages and inconsistencies in Windows, as well as in the MS Office suite of products, constant redesigns of things that worked, adding layers upon layers of "make-up" on top that obscures functionality, etc etc.

reply
I think “The Operating System is fundamentally Unstable” is a much bigger problem than “First party applications are redesigned too frequently.”
reply
Microsoft in the 90s was doing things that hadn't been done before with Windows. And the NT line, converging to consumers at XP, solved many of them, and by now they don't have an excuse any more.
reply
I’m genuinely confused about exactly what Microsoft was doing for the first time.

Not the first gui.

Not the first web browser.

Not the first spreadsheet/word processor/slideshow.

Edit: I’ll give credit, NT is good kernel, and had some novel qualities.

reply
I would argue that they where tge first to try and do all that at once while on non-specified hardware systems. Yes Apple, Amiga etc will similar stuff but they at least had set target hardware.

Microsoft tried to do everything for better and worse on wildly varied commodity hardware.

reply
The first one that pretty much anyone could use and was useful for them. We credit Apple for popularizing the GUI, too, even though they stole it from Xerox.
reply
> This is my experience with all Microsoft software. The worst thought out, buggy, untested pile of crap.

AKA: Slop. Microsoft was publishing slop before LLMs were even a thing, it's no wonder they were so eager to jump on the AI bandwagon once it showed up. Their company is uniquely set up to take advantage of a slop generator.

reply