3 ms·

> is computing actually a solved problem and we're really just mostly reinventing the wheel and enshittifying perfectly already working systems? On a whim I tr

> is computing actually a solved problem and we're really just mostly reinventing the wheel and enshittifying perfectly already working systems? On a whim I tried playing Solitaire on windows the other day. You know, that game that’s shipped with windows since forever. Well, it’s horrible now. When I tried firing it up, it first spent several minutes downloading software updates. Then it loaded in some horrible “casual games bundle” app which felt laggy like a web app - complete with Xbox cloud sync for my progress, and daily achievements and other junk. The game used to run flawlessly on my old 486. My computer now is orders of magnitude more powerful - but solitaire feels laggy. I bet the entirety of windows XP is smaller than the “update” it performed to install solitaire. I have a personal theory that there’s always something that gets the attention of the best engineers. Decades ago it was human interface guidelines and UI toolkits. Today it’s LLMs and AAA game engines. Most of the rest of the software in the world is worked on by the B team. And they don’t blink an eye at the idea of rewriting solitaire for windows on top of electron. If JavaScript is all their team knows, so be it. Heaven forbid we have to learn how to properly build software for windows.

shiroiushi 2y ago
>Heaven forbid we have to learn how to properly build software for windows They already are properly building software for Windows, and your Solitaire app is a good example of it. It's much, much better than it used to be: it's laggy and slow, and downloads a bunch of extra crap, which has the potential of getting you to spend more money. In short, changing from the old and simple Solitaire to this bloated mess makes Microsoft more profitable, and customers like you keep using Windows regardless, so why shouldn't they do this? Meanwhile, on my Linux box, my simpler games haven't changed substantially in years, if not decades (perhaps updates for the newer GUI toolkits being used), and still work great. But people prefer to stick with Windows and then complain about things being too bloated.
- josephg 2y ago
  > which has the potential of getting you to spend more money. I don't think any of the extra stuff is monetised. I don't know; I didn't look closely at it. > customers like you keep using Windows regardless ... But people prefer to stick with Windows and then complain about things being too bloated. "Stick with windows"? I run windows, macos, linux and freebsd at home. I want all of them to be better. It pains me to see any of the great operating systems of our time fall slowly toward mediocrity. Of course I complain about it. Windows should be better than this.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >I don't think any of the extra stuff is monetised. I don't know; I didn't look closely at it. If they weren't making money out those changes somehow, they likely wouldn't be dedicating resources to making those changes. >Of course I complain about it. Windows should be better than this. Why should it? It's not yours, it's Microsoft's, and it exists solely so their shareholders can extract money from customers. It's not there to be whatever you think an OS should be. They're doing things to it that they believe will improve their profits, and that's all Windows needs. As long as MS makes changes to Windows that improve profits, that by definition makes Windows "better".
    - josephg 2y ago
      It’s obviously not that simple. Microsoft makes more money when the broader community wants to use their products. Users are stakeholders. You’re right in part - Microsoft’s incentives aren’t perfectly aligned with mine. But they aren’t in opposition either. We’re both better off when Microsoft makes their products better for me such that I give them more money. Microsoft will try things on - of course! But if the broad community hates what they’re doing, they will stop doing it. They must, if they want to remain in business. Which is a round about way of saying, yes of course windows isn’t “mine”. But as I’m a paying customer, my opinion still matters - or at least, the opinion of their customers in aggregate. When you’re a customer in a situation like this, you have at least 2 choices: Voice and Exit. In this case, exit means dumping windows. And voice - at least how I’m exercising it - means making a bit of a stink about it in a forum like HN where microsoft engineers sometimes visit. If you don’t think this is the forum for that, feel free to downvote my comments. But in the meantime, it seems mighty strange of you to try and convince me that my opinions don’t matter and I should… what exactly? Be quiet and take it instead? Provide no feedback and quietly migrate to another equally imperfect ecosystem? I’m not sure how I would be helped by being smaller in the world.
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        I think your analysis is highly flawed. >Microsoft makes more money when the broader community wants to use their products. Users are stakeholders. >But if the broad community hates what they’re doing, they will stop doing it. They must, if they want to remain in business. This mostly isn't true. MS customers are going to use Windows no matter what, unless MS somehow makes it so completely unusable they're forced to abandon it. So they can make whatever annoying changes they want, and their customers aren't going anywhere. However, this isn't true of everything MS makes, so you have to be careful not to conflate Windows with anything else. If people hate Teams enough, they might be convinced to switch to Zoom or whatever. This just isn't the case with Windows. They're free to piss people off as much as they want here. >But as I’m a paying customer, my opinion still matters - or at least, the opinion of their customers in aggregate. No, it really doesn't. You aren't paying for a Windows subscription, you paid for a Windows license. You probably paid it when you bought your PC. Or if you're a big company, you probably have some sort of site license, because you made the decision to use MS products across your organization. And if you're BigCo, you probably don't have Solitaire installed on employee computers anyway. So MS making the solitaire game slow and shitty isn't going to change the amount of money they get from you: they already got your money when you bought your PC. Even worse, you probably didn't have much choice: there aren't a lot of no-OS computers unless you assembled yours from parts, and those that exist (or come with Linux pre-installed) usually cost more, because MS isn't making money from you so much, but from kickbacks from all the crapware that's pre-installed. >...a forum like HN where microsoft engineers sometimes visit. >it seems mighty strange of you to try and convince me that my opinions don’t matter and I should… what exactly? What makes you think MS engineers have any sway at all over the user experience? That stuff is decided by upper management, product managers, etc. And they don't care about you; they only care about the company's profitability. Adding more crapware and ads into Windows makes it more profitable, so that's what makes sense for them to do. Making a bloat-free, high-performance OS without any annoying ads or other crap doesn't make them more money, because you and everyone else are going to keep using Windows (and buying new computers with it pre-installed) no matter what. >it seems mighty strange of you to try and convince me that my opinions don’t matter and I should… what exactly? Be quiet and take it instead? Basically yes: you're wasting your keystrokes complaining about Windows enshittification, because your opinion really doesn't matter. It's not like MacOS, where someone has to actively want to use a Mac to go buy one, or Linux where you not only have to actively be willing to buck the trend, but also choose which of dozens of distros you want to use. With Windows, it's just the default choice for 90% of users, and they're not going to switch to something else, which MS has found out over the course of decades now. >Provide no feedback and quietly migrate to another equally imperfect ecosystem? Other ecosystems are far more likely to take your complaints seriously and to worry about your user experience.
mwcampbell 2y ago
FWIW, that newer Windows Solitaire app isn't actually using Electron now; it's a UWP app using XAML. I guess that just goes to show that the problem isn't Electron specifically.

shiroiushi 2y ago

>Heaven forbid we have to learn how to properly build software for windows They already are properly building software for Windows, and your Solitaire app is a good example of it. It's much, much better than it used to be: it's laggy and slow, and downloads a bunch of extra crap, which has the potential of getting you to spend more money. In short, changing from the old and simple Solitaire to this bloated mess makes Microsoft more profitable, and customers like you keep using Windows regardless, so why shouldn't they do this? Meanwhile, on my Linux box, my simpler games haven't changed substantially in years, if not decades (perhaps updates for the newer GUI toolkits being used), and still work great. But people prefer to stick with Windows and then complain about things being too bloated.

josephg 2y ago
> which has the potential of getting you to spend more money. I don't think any of the extra stuff is monetised. I don't know; I didn't look closely at it. > customers like you keep using Windows regardless ... But people prefer to stick with Windows and then complain about things being too bloated. "Stick with windows"? I run windows, macos, linux and freebsd at home. I want all of them to be better. It pains me to see any of the great operating systems of our time fall slowly toward mediocrity. Of course I complain about it. Windows should be better than this.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >I don't think any of the extra stuff is monetised. I don't know; I didn't look closely at it. If they weren't making money out those changes somehow, they likely wouldn't be dedicating resources to making those changes. >Of course I complain about it. Windows should be better than this. Why should it? It's not yours, it's Microsoft's, and it exists solely so their shareholders can extract money from customers. It's not there to be whatever you think an OS should be. They're doing things to it that they believe will improve their profits, and that's all Windows needs. As long as MS makes changes to Windows that improve profits, that by definition makes Windows "better".
  - josephg 2y ago
    It’s obviously not that simple. Microsoft makes more money when the broader community wants to use their products. Users are stakeholders. You’re right in part - Microsoft’s incentives aren’t perfectly aligned with mine. But they aren’t in opposition either. We’re both better off when Microsoft makes their products better for me such that I give them more money. Microsoft will try things on - of course! But if the broad community hates what they’re doing, they will stop doing it. They must, if they want to remain in business. Which is a round about way of saying, yes of course windows isn’t “mine”. But as I’m a paying customer, my opinion still matters - or at least, the opinion of their customers in aggregate. When you’re a customer in a situation like this, you have at least 2 choices: Voice and Exit. In this case, exit means dumping windows. And voice - at least how I’m exercising it - means making a bit of a stink about it in a forum like HN where microsoft engineers sometimes visit. If you don’t think this is the forum for that, feel free to downvote my comments. But in the meantime, it seems mighty strange of you to try and convince me that my opinions don’t matter and I should… what exactly? Be quiet and take it instead? Provide no feedback and quietly migrate to another equally imperfect ecosystem? I’m not sure how I would be helped by being smaller in the world.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      I think your analysis is highly flawed. >Microsoft makes more money when the broader community wants to use their products. Users are stakeholders. >But if the broad community hates what they’re doing, they will stop doing it. They must, if they want to remain in business. This mostly isn't true. MS customers are going to use Windows no matter what, unless MS somehow makes it so completely unusable they're forced to abandon it. So they can make whatever annoying changes they want, and their customers aren't going anywhere. However, this isn't true of everything MS makes, so you have to be careful not to conflate Windows with anything else. If people hate Teams enough, they might be convinced to switch to Zoom or whatever. This just isn't the case with Windows. They're free to piss people off as much as they want here. >But as I’m a paying customer, my opinion still matters - or at least, the opinion of their customers in aggregate. No, it really doesn't. You aren't paying for a Windows subscription, you paid for a Windows license. You probably paid it when you bought your PC. Or if you're a big company, you probably have some sort of site license, because you made the decision to use MS products across your organization. And if you're BigCo, you probably don't have Solitaire installed on employee computers anyway. So MS making the solitaire game slow and shitty isn't going to change the amount of money they get from you: they already got your money when you bought your PC. Even worse, you probably didn't have much choice: there aren't a lot of no-OS computers unless you assembled yours from parts, and those that exist (or come with Linux pre-installed) usually cost more, because MS isn't making money from you so much, but from kickbacks from all the crapware that's pre-installed. >...a forum like HN where microsoft engineers sometimes visit. >it seems mighty strange of you to try and convince me that my opinions don’t matter and I should… what exactly? What makes you think MS engineers have any sway at all over the user experience? That stuff is decided by upper management, product managers, etc. And they don't care about you; they only care about the company's profitability. Adding more crapware and ads into Windows makes it more profitable, so that's what makes sense for them to do. Making a bloat-free, high-performance OS without any annoying ads or other crap doesn't make them more money, because you and everyone else are going to keep using Windows (and buying new computers with it pre-installed) no matter what. >it seems mighty strange of you to try and convince me that my opinions don’t matter and I should… what exactly? Be quiet and take it instead? Basically yes: you're wasting your keystrokes complaining about Windows enshittification, because your opinion really doesn't matter. It's not like MacOS, where someone has to actively want to use a Mac to go buy one, or Linux where you not only have to actively be willing to buck the trend, but also choose which of dozens of distros you want to use. With Windows, it's just the default choice for 90% of users, and they're not going to switch to something else, which MS has found out over the course of decades now. >Provide no feedback and quietly migrate to another equally imperfect ecosystem? Other ecosystems are far more likely to take your complaints seriously and to worry about your user experience.

mwcampbell 2y ago

FWIW, that newer Windows Solitaire app isn't actually using Electron now; it's a UWP app using XAML. I guess that just goes to show that the problem isn't Electron specifically.