I think that’s largely valid criticism. I would say the fundamental problem of settings control fragmentation is the fundamental challenge at the heat of the wi

I think that’s largely valid criticism. I would say the fundamental problem of settings control fragmentation is the fundamental challenge at the heat of the windows project - it’s trying to be all things to all people. for example, the three examples you gave are each intended for different audiences (power users, non-power users, and the enterprise respectively). I think my ideal would be for the new settings paradigm developed completely parallel to the classical settings interfaces. I don’t think it’s a good idea to deprecate classic settings, maybe not forever but absolutely not before you have parity. I would prefer them to try and tackle whole host of issues before unified settings. Transition to a CoW fs (rip refs), separating configuration and state from the registry and more robust display scaling for starters. That said, I think settings fragmentation as-is is needlessly complex. And there have been real improvements in my opinion in some of the new settings ui/ux, for example the new per-application audio I/O control menu. The classic network properties and settings are truly awful, something as simple setting a static IP requires a series of dependant and uncloseable property panes that can’t be used (or even visible in some cases) while you are using a child of the previous pane. It’s been largely unchanged since windows 95, and in the past couple years I’ve liked where they are headed. I think that if they really can achieve their goal of a central, monolithic settings control interface then that would be a real value.