4 ms·

There is no deal, you’re effectively modding an os in unintended ways

xeonmc 2y ago
He is altering the deal. Pray that he don't alter it any further.
alok-g 2y ago
I agree. The very reason why those tools exist though is because there's a sizeable enough demand. What's under question is that 'unintention', all the more so when features are being removed, without leaving some settings in for power users. Some user experience changes seem backward steps.
chmod775 2y ago
Maybe I'm too old, but since when is simply using another software as opposed to built-ins considered modding? Most of these seem like replacements to me. If doing that little is now considered "modding" a desktop OS, we've fucked up somewhere. Even phone OSes like Android let you download replacements of built-ins (such as another launcher, file manager, photo app) right from their app store.
- FdbkHb 2y ago
  > Maybe I'm too old, but since when is simply using another software as opposed to built-ins considered modding? Most of these seem like replacements to me. ExplorerPatcher /is/ modding. It's not killing explorer.exe and launching another UI that is independent from the os like, say, what blackbox for windows or litestep did. It's patching running executables in memory in a way that could break whenever any data structure gets changed in a Windows update, which is a big deal because Windows is a rolling release OS that constantly adds and remove features. Users of explorer patcher found themselves having to boot in windows safe mode to disable it in the past after windows update ran. It's literally breaking your machine in a way that computer users that aren't very savvy might not understand how to fix. It's very bad publicity for MS who might get blamed by some: "my computer isn't starting anymore after a windows update, I hate MS" so it makes perfect sense to prevent this program from launching in a new major update. And it's relying on the assumption that the old code paths it depends on won't disappear in the future. EP doesn't have a replica of the old windows taskbar: it's merely disabling Windows 11's new one and forcing the old one to appear, and it can do that because the code for the Windows 10 task bar is still there. You surely don't expect this to survive all future refactorings and cleanups? ExplorerPatcher is the kind of software that would have been neat in the old world of Windows where a release of Windows gets frozen and sees no major changes past security updates except for the release of a Service Pack which you have to manually install yourself. It is a terrible idea in the current world of a rolling release state OS.
  - felsokning 2y ago
    > You surely don't expect this to survive all future refactorings and cleanups? The Win10 bar code has been there, since October 2021, though? I don't know how frequent refactorings are (at M$FT) but given it's been there for nigh three years, I don't see how that's a relevant factor. Even _if_ it were refactored (and/or cleaned-up), it wouldn't be omitted from the release notes, right? Unless it's on the roadmap _for_ cleanup, this change to try to "disallow" the program, purely based on the program name and no other identifiers, doesn't give me (don't know about anyone else) much faith that removal would either be executed or executed well (e.g.: legacy Win code spaghetti'd to other code that they haven't changed/fixed, yet). If I were a betting person, new feature 'x' for cloud or advertising purposes would take priority over any modification[s] or clean-up/removal. In other words, there's no ROI (read: profit) in fixing their technical debt, currently, and there hasn't been for almost three years (if we go with the lifetime of the Win10 bar code existing still in the Win code-base). Why would that suddenly change?
    - 7bit 2y ago
      > The Win10 bar code has been there, since October 2021, though? And it could be removed tomorrow. That's the point.
      - felsokning 2y ago
        "Could" is, by-and-far, a long stretch from considered, posited, or even planned. Historical patterns (thus far) have leaned more towards "could not" (three years is not a modicum of time measured in the software lifecycle).
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
    > It's very bad publicity for MS who might get blamed by some: "my computer isn't starting anymore after a windows update, I hate MS" so it makes perfect sense to prevent this program from launching in a new major update. They deserve to be blamed but for something else: 1) create a problem, 2) refuse to solve it, 3) prevent third-party solutions. People used to ungroup tasks and have the taskbar to the side etc. for two decades. At least the ungrouping thing is coming back but Microsoft stubbornness about blocking the remaining features makes me thing something else might be at play other than someone's hurt ego or some designers aesthetic vision.

He is altering the deal. Pray that he don't alter it any further.

I agree. The very reason why those tools exist though is because there's a sizeable enough demand. What's under question is that 'unintention', all the more so when features are being removed, without leaving some settings in for power users. Some user experience changes seem backward steps.

chmod775 2y ago

Maybe I'm too old, but since when is simply using another software as opposed to built-ins considered modding? Most of these seem like replacements to me. If doing that little is now considered "modding" a desktop OS, we've fucked up somewhere. Even phone OSes like Android let you download replacements of built-ins (such as another launcher, file manager, photo app) right from their app store.

FdbkHb 2y ago
> Maybe I'm too old, but since when is simply using another software as opposed to built-ins considered modding? Most of these seem like replacements to me. ExplorerPatcher /is/ modding. It's not killing explorer.exe and launching another UI that is independent from the os like, say, what blackbox for windows or litestep did. It's patching running executables in memory in a way that could break whenever any data structure gets changed in a Windows update, which is a big deal because Windows is a rolling release OS that constantly adds and remove features. Users of explorer patcher found themselves having to boot in windows safe mode to disable it in the past after windows update ran. It's literally breaking your machine in a way that computer users that aren't very savvy might not understand how to fix. It's very bad publicity for MS who might get blamed by some: "my computer isn't starting anymore after a windows update, I hate MS" so it makes perfect sense to prevent this program from launching in a new major update. And it's relying on the assumption that the old code paths it depends on won't disappear in the future. EP doesn't have a replica of the old windows taskbar: it's merely disabling Windows 11's new one and forcing the old one to appear, and it can do that because the code for the Windows 10 task bar is still there. You surely don't expect this to survive all future refactorings and cleanups? ExplorerPatcher is the kind of software that would have been neat in the old world of Windows where a release of Windows gets frozen and sees no major changes past security updates except for the release of a Service Pack which you have to manually install yourself. It is a terrible idea in the current world of a rolling release state OS.
- felsokning 2y ago
  > You surely don't expect this to survive all future refactorings and cleanups? The Win10 bar code has been there, since October 2021, though? I don't know how frequent refactorings are (at M$FT) but given it's been there for nigh three years, I don't see how that's a relevant factor. Even _if_ it were refactored (and/or cleaned-up), it wouldn't be omitted from the release notes, right? Unless it's on the roadmap _for_ cleanup, this change to try to "disallow" the program, purely based on the program name and no other identifiers, doesn't give me (don't know about anyone else) much faith that removal would either be executed or executed well (e.g.: legacy Win code spaghetti'd to other code that they haven't changed/fixed, yet). If I were a betting person, new feature 'x' for cloud or advertising purposes would take priority over any modification[s] or clean-up/removal. In other words, there's no ROI (read: profit) in fixing their technical debt, currently, and there hasn't been for almost three years (if we go with the lifetime of the Win10 bar code existing still in the Win code-base). Why would that suddenly change?
  - 7bit 2y ago
    > The Win10 bar code has been there, since October 2021, though? And it could be removed tomorrow. That's the point.
    - felsokning 2y ago
      "Could" is, by-and-far, a long stretch from considered, posited, or even planned. Historical patterns (thus far) have leaned more towards "could not" (three years is not a modicum of time measured in the software lifecycle).
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- dvfjsdhgfv 2y ago
  > It's very bad publicity for MS who might get blamed by some: "my computer isn't starting anymore after a windows update, I hate MS" so it makes perfect sense to prevent this program from launching in a new major update. They deserve to be blamed but for something else: 1) create a problem, 2) refuse to solve it, 3) prevent third-party solutions. People used to ungroup tasks and have the taskbar to the side etc. for two decades. At least the ungrouping thing is coming back but Microsoft stubbornness about blocking the remaining features makes me thing something else might be at play other than someone's hurt ego or some designers aesthetic vision.