4 ms·

> I could imagine you might need a legacy Control Panel that only appears if you install an old app that adds something to it—but anyone who doesn't use those l

> I could imagine you might need a legacy Control Panel that only appears if you install an old app that adds something to it—but anyone who doesn't use those legacy apps wouldn't see it. Yeah, and that means (at least for me) non-coherency of the platform. Why should there be two different settings on one OS, depending whether the user installed the app it or not? > And even then, there's no reason Microsoft couldn't add a visual update and even integrate the UI into Settings. FYI: the reason Microsoft can’t remove this control panel stuff is because some legacy apps (mostly designed for enterprise) installs DLLs that adds a control panel item. This is one of the examples where their backwards compatibility drags them to make a better OS.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
> Yeah, and that means (at least for me) non-coherency of the platform. Then don't install old apps and you'll get coherency. This is much better than outright blocking those old apps for everyone. > FYI: the reason Microsoft can’t remove this control panel stuff is because some legacy apps (mostly designed for enterprise) installs DLLs that adds a control panel item If I were Microsoft, I would remove the "Control Panel" as a program the user can open, but keep the underlying framework. Then, if a legacy program adds a control panel item, I'd place a shortcut to that item in modern Settings. It might not be 100% visually perfect, but you'd get most of the way there. If there's some technical reason Microsoft can't do that (I don't understand how there could be—we're talking about shortcuts), at minimum the legacy Control Panel shouldn't appear until a 3rd party item is pushed to it, and it shouldn't contain any Microsoft settings. The current situation is completely unnecessary.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  > If I were Microsoft, I would remove the "Control Panel" as a program the user can open They did and people got upset. It's a "who moved my cheese" backward compatibility problem for people. People get upset if they can't find that thing they always used and worked just fine. For a brief while Windows 10 the legacy Control Panel was entirely removed from Search, and there were so many complaints so they backed off and it's searchable again. That's about the only way to find it; at this point in Windows 10 it's not in the Start Menu, it's not File Explorer Quick Access. People have to intentionally find the Control Panel. People still talk about the COM GUID to the legacy Control Panel as if it were some secret cheat code to Windows, making shortcuts to the Control Panel because it looks familiar and powerful and/or they don't want to relearn anything new, don't want to get used to the all the cheese that moved around in the modern Settings app.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    I have vague memories of complaints, but I recall it being because Settings was lacking a lot of really basic functionality at the time.
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      I think the attitude to Settings resembles a lot of the attitude to the Office Ribbon switch. Just about no one uses more than roughly 20% of Control Panel/Settings, but just about everyone uses a slightly different 20%, so even just defining what's "basic functionality" is fraught with a wide variety of subjective opinions.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

> Yeah, and that means (at least for me) non-coherency of the platform. Then don't install old apps and you'll get coherency. This is much better than outright blocking those old apps for everyone. > FYI: the reason Microsoft can’t remove this control panel stuff is because some legacy apps (mostly designed for enterprise) installs DLLs that adds a control panel item If I were Microsoft, I would remove the "Control Panel" as a program the user can open, but keep the underlying framework. Then, if a legacy program adds a control panel item, I'd place a shortcut to that item in modern Settings. It might not be 100% visually perfect, but you'd get most of the way there. If there's some technical reason Microsoft can't do that (I don't understand how there could be—we're talking about shortcuts), at minimum the legacy Control Panel shouldn't appear until a 3rd party item is pushed to it, and it shouldn't contain any Microsoft settings. The current situation is completely unnecessary.

WorldMaker 7y ago
> If I were Microsoft, I would remove the "Control Panel" as a program the user can open They did and people got upset. It's a "who moved my cheese" backward compatibility problem for people. People get upset if they can't find that thing they always used and worked just fine. For a brief while Windows 10 the legacy Control Panel was entirely removed from Search, and there were so many complaints so they backed off and it's searchable again. That's about the only way to find it; at this point in Windows 10 it's not in the Start Menu, it's not File Explorer Quick Access. People have to intentionally find the Control Panel. People still talk about the COM GUID to the legacy Control Panel as if it were some secret cheat code to Windows, making shortcuts to the Control Panel because it looks familiar and powerful and/or they don't want to relearn anything new, don't want to get used to the all the cheese that moved around in the modern Settings app.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I have vague memories of complaints, but I recall it being because Settings was lacking a lot of really basic functionality at the time.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    I think the attitude to Settings resembles a lot of the attitude to the Office Ribbon switch. Just about no one uses more than roughly 20% of Control Panel/Settings, but just about everyone uses a slightly different 20%, so even just defining what's "basic functionality" is fraught with a wide variety of subjective opinions.