4 ms·
Also had to do the same. The method of disabling it, while not immediately obvious, didn't seem intentionally user-hostile. However, the idea of modifying any p
by iansinnott 5y ago
Also had to do the same. The method of disabling it, while not immediately obvious, didn't seem intentionally user-hostile. However, the idea of modifying any part of a user's desktop without their explicit input is troubling to say the least.
- design-material 5y agoMicrosoft's recent history with 'forced UI additions' of this sort would imply it is indeed intentionally user-hostile.
- bogwog 5y agoExactly why more people should switch to Linux on their desktops/laptops. > but Linux sucks, it's ugly, it's broken, it doesn't work, blah blah blah! The amount of time people spend complaining about the evil shit their monopolist is doing to them would be better spent learning how to use Linux. It's not that hard. A farmer isn't going to make changes to their business model because the cattle is complaining. Microsoft is going to keep doing what they're doing until the government steps in (which is unlikely to happen any time soon). Same goes for Apple, Amazon, Google, and all these companies that are immune to competitive forces.
- bitcharmer 5y agoGoogle started doing this on mobile with their chrome for android. Some time ago they introduced an alternative method of presenting open tabs in a grid instead of a list. They of course made the new setting the default and you have to do a Web search to find out how to revert it to the previous setting. They also disregard your choice upon every update and switch you back to grid view. Google has become the epitome of bad ux and user-hostile design.