6 ms·

How are they ruining Windows? People have been saying this since XP (before SP1 or SP2, when everyone hated it.) Yet there's not much evidence to support it...t

How are they ruining Windows? People have been saying this since XP (before SP1 or SP2, when everyone hated it.) Yet there's not much evidence to support it...they are actually doing some really cool things with Windows now like adding bash and having different flavor Linux subsystems. The main issue I've had is some lack of quality control since they let go tons of testers and used Insiders instead. That has not effected me personally, but it has become a public perception they need to clean up.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I'm not the one you're asking. But to me, the (most recent) way they ruined Windows was the new interface. I don't want to interact with my desktop via a phone/tablet interface. I don't want to use a touchscreen. I want to use only the keyboard and mouse. More: I don't want to use my computer as a media consumption device. So for me, all the new UI changes are counterproductive. But that's me. Others have different usage profiles; whether it's a net win or a net loss depends on the customer mix.
- duxup 8y ago
  But all the cards and the tablet interface stuff ... is all side stuff that you don't need to use? At least I hardly ever see any sign of it. Am I missing something? There was an issue a LONG time ago when the tiles were more front and center but they dumped that a while ago.
  - markbnj 8y ago
    I agree with you generally but it's not just the tiles. They also made a lot of changes around how settings and other features are accessed to make them more touch friendly, and if you're just trying to get in and change a thing it's often more work to get to it. There are ways to work around almost all of it but its just sort of ongoing evidence of a design direction that didn't really pan out for the mobile users it was intended to serve, and makes life a little harder for technical desktop users. These days I only use Windows 10 for gaming and to host my ubuntu laptop over VNC. If it weren't for games/steam I'd probably uninstall it.
    - duxup 8y ago
      I actually like the settings changes. Fewer things on each screen and the search-ability is pretty great now.
      - mixmastamyk 8y ago
        Still have to dig several screens deep to access common settings. Still prefer the old-school control panel.
        lozenge 8y ago
        You can find them by typing into the Start Menu.
        mixmastamyk 8y ago
        Just because you can now search for them (a bonus), doesn’t mean they should then be buried (a negative).
- partiallypro 8y ago
  Considering Microsoft is likely killing live tiles and there isn't much of a touch interface at all, I don't understand your problem. Are you talking about Windows 8? I genuinely don't know exactly what you mean at all.
- GordonS 8y ago
  So, it seems like you are describing the car crash that was Windows 8? Seriously, if you haven't tried Windows 10 since it first came out, try it - I held out on Windows 7 for years, but I'm really glad I switched.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I'm on 10. I still hate the interface. Yes, it's better than 8 was, but that's not much. They took a step in the wrong direction, and then they took a half-step back. I mean, that's better than nothing, but it's still less than good.
  - Roboprog 8y ago
    I can’t thing of anything useful that MS added since Windows XP. Going from 16 bit cooperative to 32 bit preemptive in the 3.x to 9x change, useful. Going to multiple accounts with permissions in the 9x to XP change, useful. Rearranging the UI time and again since Vista, and sucking up CPUs with scannning processes, so what? Note that I really only used Windows at work, anyway (instead of Linux, or more recently OSX), and I managed to avoid the post-7 cluster-bomb entirely at my current job.
    - dlp211 8y ago
      The secure driver model.
    - GordonS 8y ago
      I see Windows 10 as a part of the continuing evolution of Windows - it's not a million miles away from Windows XP, but I wouldn't want it to be. Some new features: - Cortana (I don't use it, but I know lots of people that do) - The Windows Store and UWP apps - High DPI support (this is something MS does very well compared to Linux desktops) - Windows Hello (I find this really for signing in with a fingerprint) - BitLocker (this is a bit one, IMO) - Device Guard (Enterprise only, AFAIK. Very usual in certin environments) - Windows Defender (it's now a 1st class AV - I have no reason to use anything else) - Window Defender Exploit Guard - Windows Defender Credential Guard - Windows Defender ATP (only for large enterprises, but it's amazing) - Windows S mode (this is a pretty big deal, and it's suitable for a lot of consumers, even if it's not exactly HN users' target market) - Improved VPN support - Built-in snipping tool (WIN + SHIFT + S) - Dark mode (I like this) - Improved Start Menu (IMO) - Task switcher - Action centre - Improved command prompt (even supports copying with CTRL-C, how incredible!) - Edge (OK, maybe moot now) - Multiple desktops (yes, I know these have been a feature of Linux window systems for decades) I imagine I've left out quite a bit too.
bitwize 8y ago
Windows is subject to this sort of bizarre conservation of awesome. Any improvements in one area must be counterbalanced with an absolute shitshow in some other area. Windows 95 brought full 32-bit-ness to the average desktop, but it was a crashy buggy mess based on DOS that should have never existed because Windows NT was a thing. Windows 98 improved on Windows 95 in some ways, but introduced completely unnecessary IE integration and the Active Desktop nobody used. Windows XP finally brought the NT kernel to the consumer desktop, but it looked like Fisher-Price and introduced phone-home DRM integrated at a system level. Windows 7 seems immune to this rule, being a massive improvement over Vista and XP with few drawbacks, but was bookended by pure-shitshow releases Vista and 8. Windows 10 fixed many of the problems with Windows 8, and gave us nice things like WSL, but also gave us built-in spyware and ads-in-the-start-menu malarkey. There's a reason why people say 2000 and 7 were the best Windows releases ever.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > Windows 95 ... should have never existed because... NT was a thing. Windows NT needed way high-end hardware to be usable at the time. (Even Linux did, if you wanted to use a Win95-like GUI and not be limited to the text-only CLI.) Windows 95 was a hack, but it was still miles better than pure MS-DOG and 16-bit versions of Windows. > Windows 98 ...introduced completely unnecessary IE integration and the Active Desktop nobody used. Completely unnecessary? Used ChromeOS lately? Guess what, that integrates the web browser at a far deeper level than Win98 ever did. And Active Desktop-equivalent technologies are only coming back into use very recently, with things like Web Notifications, ActivityPub, Progressive Web Apps and the like. > Windows XP ... looked like Fisher-Price ... Except that you could disable the Fisher Price bits, either in XP or as late as Vista and Windows 7.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    > Guess what, that integrates the web browser at a far deeper level than Win98 ever did. That's the entire point; it uses the web browser because the web browser became an operating system (in the "application platform" sense of the word, not in the "kernel" sense) in its own right, and ChromeOS is Google's attempt to follow it to its conclusion. This is categorically different than Windows' deep and arbitrary integration of Explorer.
matrix 8y ago
The heavy-handed updates forcing frequent reboots are the deal-breaker for me. It seriously pisses me off to come back to my machine only discover that all those editor windows I had open gone, the IDE close, and all the open browser tabs lost, etc. Why are frequent full reboots even necessary in this day and age?!
- diegoperini 8y ago
  It's ok if they are necessary. It's not ok if they are needed ASAP.
  - kirion25 8y ago
    I agree with the gp that consecutive full reboots definitely shouldn't be necessary. That Windows forces your hand on when to reboot just worsens the case. The state of Windows update is terrible to me. Say what you will about Linux, but updating on most distros is a breeze compared to Windows.
- naikrovek 8y ago
  Those reboots are heavy handed because attackers are heavy handed with new attacks and if not forced to reboot, you never will. You get plenty of time to prepare for the reboot that's coming. You can even delay it by a day or more. It isn't Windows' fault that you aren't prepared for it when it comes; it's yours.
  - userbinator 8y ago
    This ridiculously idiotic notion of "security" needs to stop. Especially when "fixing" things that already require full admin access anyway. True remote exploits are (fortunately) very rare, and even then there should never be a need to reboot --- patching files in memory was perfected years ago. Give the users freedom to choose when to reboot, and even to choose whether they want to. Some users will continue to manage to get infected with malware despite constantly being disrupted by the constant reboots, others never installed a single security patch and yet would never be infected due to what they do (or what they don't, to be more accurate.) But that's their choice and theirs alone. Unfortunately it seems companies are far more authoritarian and would rather breed a docile obedient type of users in which to force their ideas on and control. I will resist the urge to post that old Benjamin Franklin quote again.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

I'm not the one you're asking. But to me, the (most recent) way they ruined Windows was the new interface. I don't want to interact with my desktop via a phone/tablet interface. I don't want to use a touchscreen. I want to use only the keyboard and mouse. More: I don't want to use my computer as a media consumption device. So for me, all the new UI changes are counterproductive. But that's me. Others have different usage profiles; whether it's a net win or a net loss depends on the customer mix.

duxup 8y ago
But all the cards and the tablet interface stuff ... is all side stuff that you don't need to use? At least I hardly ever see any sign of it. Am I missing something? There was an issue a LONG time ago when the tiles were more front and center but they dumped that a while ago.
- markbnj 8y ago
  I agree with you generally but it's not just the tiles. They also made a lot of changes around how settings and other features are accessed to make them more touch friendly, and if you're just trying to get in and change a thing it's often more work to get to it. There are ways to work around almost all of it but its just sort of ongoing evidence of a design direction that didn't really pan out for the mobile users it was intended to serve, and makes life a little harder for technical desktop users. These days I only use Windows 10 for gaming and to host my ubuntu laptop over VNC. If it weren't for games/steam I'd probably uninstall it.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I actually like the settings changes. Fewer things on each screen and the search-ability is pretty great now.
    - mixmastamyk 8y ago
      Still have to dig several screens deep to access common settings. Still prefer the old-school control panel.
      - lozenge 8y ago
        You can find them by typing into the Start Menu.
        mixmastamyk 8y ago
        Just because you can now search for them (a bonus), doesn’t mean they should then be buried (a negative).
partiallypro 8y ago
Considering Microsoft is likely killing live tiles and there isn't much of a touch interface at all, I don't understand your problem. Are you talking about Windows 8? I genuinely don't know exactly what you mean at all.
GordonS 8y ago
So, it seems like you are describing the car crash that was Windows 8? Seriously, if you haven't tried Windows 10 since it first came out, try it - I held out on Windows 7 for years, but I'm really glad I switched.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I'm on 10. I still hate the interface. Yes, it's better than 8 was, but that's not much. They took a step in the wrong direction, and then they took a half-step back. I mean, that's better than nothing, but it's still less than good.
- Roboprog 8y ago
  I can’t thing of anything useful that MS added since Windows XP. Going from 16 bit cooperative to 32 bit preemptive in the 3.x to 9x change, useful. Going to multiple accounts with permissions in the 9x to XP change, useful. Rearranging the UI time and again since Vista, and sucking up CPUs with scannning processes, so what? Note that I really only used Windows at work, anyway (instead of Linux, or more recently OSX), and I managed to avoid the post-7 cluster-bomb entirely at my current job.
  - dlp211 8y ago
    The secure driver model.
  - GordonS 8y ago
    I see Windows 10 as a part of the continuing evolution of Windows - it's not a million miles away from Windows XP, but I wouldn't want it to be. Some new features: - Cortana (I don't use it, but I know lots of people that do) - The Windows Store and UWP apps - High DPI support (this is something MS does very well compared to Linux desktops) - Windows Hello (I find this really for signing in with a fingerprint) - BitLocker (this is a bit one, IMO) - Device Guard (Enterprise only, AFAIK. Very usual in certin environments) - Windows Defender (it's now a 1st class AV - I have no reason to use anything else) - Window Defender Exploit Guard - Windows Defender Credential Guard - Windows Defender ATP (only for large enterprises, but it's amazing) - Windows S mode (this is a pretty big deal, and it's suitable for a lot of consumers, even if it's not exactly HN users' target market) - Improved VPN support - Built-in snipping tool (WIN + SHIFT + S) - Dark mode (I like this) - Improved Start Menu (IMO) - Task switcher - Action centre - Improved command prompt (even supports copying with CTRL-C, how incredible!) - Edge (OK, maybe moot now) - Multiple desktops (yes, I know these have been a feature of Linux window systems for decades) I imagine I've left out quite a bit too.

bitwize 8y ago

Windows is subject to this sort of bizarre conservation of awesome. Any improvements in one area must be counterbalanced with an absolute shitshow in some other area. Windows 95 brought full 32-bit-ness to the average desktop, but it was a crashy buggy mess based on DOS that should have never existed because Windows NT was a thing. Windows 98 improved on Windows 95 in some ways, but introduced completely unnecessary IE integration and the Active Desktop nobody used. Windows XP finally brought the NT kernel to the consumer desktop, but it looked like Fisher-Price and introduced phone-home DRM integrated at a system level. Windows 7 seems immune to this rule, being a massive improvement over Vista and XP with few drawbacks, but was bookended by pure-shitshow releases Vista and 8. Windows 10 fixed many of the problems with Windows 8, and gave us nice things like WSL, but also gave us built-in spyware and ads-in-the-start-menu malarkey. There's a reason why people say 2000 and 7 were the best Windows releases ever.

zozbot123 8y ago
> Windows 95 ... should have never existed because... NT was a thing. Windows NT needed way high-end hardware to be usable at the time. (Even Linux did, if you wanted to use a Win95-like GUI and not be limited to the text-only CLI.) Windows 95 was a hack, but it was still miles better than pure MS-DOG and 16-bit versions of Windows. > Windows 98 ...introduced completely unnecessary IE integration and the Active Desktop nobody used. Completely unnecessary? Used ChromeOS lately? Guess what, that integrates the web browser at a far deeper level than Win98 ever did. And Active Desktop-equivalent technologies are only coming back into use very recently, with things like Web Notifications, ActivityPub, Progressive Web Apps and the like. > Windows XP ... looked like Fisher-Price ... Except that you could disable the Fisher Price bits, either in XP or as late as Vista and Windows 7.
- weberc2 8y ago
  > Guess what, that integrates the web browser at a far deeper level than Win98 ever did. That's the entire point; it uses the web browser because the web browser became an operating system (in the "application platform" sense of the word, not in the "kernel" sense) in its own right, and ChromeOS is Google's attempt to follow it to its conclusion. This is categorically different than Windows' deep and arbitrary integration of Explorer.

matrix 8y ago

The heavy-handed updates forcing frequent reboots are the deal-breaker for me. It seriously pisses me off to come back to my machine only discover that all those editor windows I had open gone, the IDE close, and all the open browser tabs lost, etc. Why are frequent full reboots even necessary in this day and age?!

diegoperini 8y ago
It's ok if they are necessary. It's not ok if they are needed ASAP.
- kirion25 8y ago
  I agree with the gp that consecutive full reboots definitely shouldn't be necessary. That Windows forces your hand on when to reboot just worsens the case. The state of Windows update is terrible to me. Say what you will about Linux, but updating on most distros is a breeze compared to Windows.
naikrovek 8y ago
Those reboots are heavy handed because attackers are heavy handed with new attacks and if not forced to reboot, you never will. You get plenty of time to prepare for the reboot that's coming. You can even delay it by a day or more. It isn't Windows' fault that you aren't prepared for it when it comes; it's yours.
- userbinator 8y ago
  This ridiculously idiotic notion of "security" needs to stop. Especially when "fixing" things that already require full admin access anyway. True remote exploits are (fortunately) very rare, and even then there should never be a need to reboot --- patching files in memory was perfected years ago. Give the users freedom to choose when to reboot, and even to choose whether they want to. Some users will continue to manage to get infected with malware despite constantly being disrupted by the constant reboots, others never installed a single security patch and yet would never be infected due to what they do (or what they don't, to be more accurate.) But that's their choice and theirs alone. Unfortunately it seems companies are far more authoritarian and would rather breed a docile obedient type of users in which to force their ideas on and control. I will resist the urge to post that old Benjamin Franklin quote again.