9 ms·

I swear, MS kills all the useful features in Windows. For comparison, configuring a network interface using Control Panel is simple, straight forward and allow

• nolok 2y ago
  The main gripe is they seem to think we use it on a touch interface for tablet, so it makes no sense visually on desktop The second gripe is they seem to add features to it whenever they change something in windows, so older stuff that doesn't change because it doesn't need to is not in it
• imhoguy 2y ago
  I think the status quo Control Panel moves apart to dumb Settings and limitless command line.
• icelancer 2y ago
  The Windows 11 networking experience is beyond awful. It's incredible how bad it is.
  • ExoticPearTree 2y ago
    My problem is that it does this for Server versions as well.
    • minkles 2y ago
      We all learned to do it via powershell a couple of years ago because it's impossible to work out which thing to go to in the UI now. This sucks more.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • wjholden 2y ago
        I had been somewhat comfortable with the older `netsh` commands from Windows 7. The PowerShell commands are overall richer for being consistent and composable if you're already comfortable with PS, but it does require a learning investment. My general sentiment is that I am frustrated with tech companies imposing UIs on users. Some examples: Duolingo changed its interface to this new "learning path" that took choices away from users. Garmin updated its Connect app with a new UI that (I subjectively feel) shows less information and forces unnecessary compromises. Microsoft has been messing with the Control Panel for years. The new UI is missing a lot of settings. I don't agree with the Ars article that you only need the legacy Control Panel for esoteric features: I never figured out how to set a Static IP Address in the new Settings app, which is hardly unusual for servers. I trust it is possible to set a Static IP in the new UI, but I still feel like these changes are unnecessary and unwelcome. Anyways, I do hope the PowerShell commands will remain stable for the next 20 years.
      • hulitu 2y ago
        > We all learned to do it via powershell a couple of years ago I presume it is documented on answers.microsoft.com. /s
        • minkles 2y ago
          haha nope!
        • Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
          Surely an API would be on MSDN and not the user forum. (also sarcasm)
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• bongodongobob 2y ago
  What sort of fancy configs do you have going on? What do you need to change in the network settings? Why aren't you using DHCP options? You need a static Windows 10/11 IP address? I just don't get why you need to fuck with the networking on a device that is almost 100% getting DHCP. If you feel the need to mess with the network settings in Windows, you're kind of doing it wrong. If you're going to have the l33t M$ sucks attitude, learn to set up your network properly and it's not an issue.
  • worthless-trash 2y ago
    This is not the way.
  • SomeCollegeBro 2y ago
    There's plenty of valid reasons to configure a static IP address, I'd say I do it weekly. Configuring a commonly used machine to be static for ease of use. Connecting a TCP communication device (barcode reader, RFID reader, etc.) direct to your computer for testing. Just as a couple examples.
    • bongodongobob 2y ago
      Yeah and you can still make a static IP with Windows 11. This is bullshit M$ whining. Shit changes. Explain to me why Debian fucking around with "ip" is less destructive.
  • legends2k 2y ago
    Classic "I've a nail so everyone will have nails and all they need is a hammer" attitude. Not everyone will use DHCP. Static IP is a thing for a reason. I use it on servers, Wi-Fi printers (for mobiles to immediately pick them up), IP packet logging/bucketizing based on client, etc. There's a lot of spheres in computing other than the end-user one which is just the final tip of the iceberg.
    • bongodongobob 2y ago
      Yeah I use it on servers and printers as well. Almost never on workstations.
• anal_reactor 2y ago
  I think that Microsoft is extremely short-sighted here. They're clearly pursuing next quarter growth. They're turning away from people who are willing to be the first adopters and free marketers. Therefore, those people will indeed turn away, adopt something else, and then start convincing everyone else to go along with them. Of course it will take a while because Linux is still a complete mess on desktop, but the number of people willing to put their time into making it work slowly but steadily keeps increasing.
  • fxtentacle 2y ago
    As someone who recently switched to PopOS, it's actually very stable and feels like Windows 7. Fast and simple. Nowadays most games and the Microsoft office suite also run in Wine.
    • Arisaka1 2y ago
      Every time someone criticizes the state of Linux desktop as an overall experience being generally troublesome for the average consumer discussions always devolve down to anecdotes that only serve as proof that tech savvy people who are willing to either push through the issues or find alternatives did so, therefore the same experience is valid for those who didn't, making it sound like a "skill issue" and not a "desktop experience issue". I would argue that, outside of clicking some folders and adding/deleting stuff, the skills required to make ANY desktop experience useful should be as low as possible. Example: I convinced a fellow gamer to give Ubuntu a try, and I helped him with the dual booting process. Then he realized that his framerates feel janky, due to issues with Wayland and vrr. His display had light surfaces flicker while gaming and, while we managed to make Final Fantasy 14 playable, we faced jarring mouse cursor movement when the framerates dipped, which didn't exist on Windows. While reading this message I'm sure some people will feel an urge to say "oh that's just the monitor that's faulty", "that's just KDE and how it handles mouse movement", and they always miss the point: Just like a teacher doesn't care if a dog ate a homework, and the ISP customer if it was raining, the end user doesn't care if it's Wayland, KDE, Ubuntu or whatever. All they care about was "getting IT done", they couldn't, and now they have to accept a workaround solution or just go back to what they always used fine. Part of the reason why is that, there's no focused effort towards a small amount of directions, and there's lots of opinion on who can do it better, even the definition of better. Since we're mostly developers, it's akin to working with .NET versus working with nodeJS. The fragmentation is inherent to the system, and the target audience loves it, even at the cost of the end user.
• SebastianKra 2y ago
  You think this process is simple and easy to understand?: https://se.mathworks.com/help/comm/usrpradio/ug/configure-ethernet-connection-manually-on-windows-10.html https://se.mathworks.com/help/comm/usrpradio/ug/configure-et... ...maybe because you are used to it, but this process has confused me since I was 14. My eyes go blank and I just hammer out the inside-out learned clicks to get to that final screen. Compare this to the MacOS flow: Settings -> Network -> Port -> Details... It looks like the Windows 11 flow is similar to MacOS. As always, Windows problem is that they keep interfaces unchanged until they're completely outdated. Then they completely replace them with new ones, nullifying the users experience with the old ones. They instead should gradually update components so that users have time to adapt. > it doesn’t even show you how long that interface has been connected to the network and how much data was transferred both ways it does show that
• devjab 2y ago
  I’m a little split on it. I don’t actually mind their streamlining because of the way I windows. Which is professionally and for video games. I wouldn’t use windows professionally if I had a choice (company policy, and one I get from an ops perspective), but at least every setting is taken care for me. I wouldn’t really use windows for video games either, but the fact that they are removing more and more of the “use windows” part means that my only windows machine is basically just a console at this point with how little I have to interact with it. I do understand where you’re coming from. Which is the flip side of it, but what I don’t understand is why anyone really wants to use Windows in 2024. I’m not a huge fan of the direction Apple is going with their continuous platform lockin, but the smallest MacBook Air is cheap and works better than anything that runs windows. Similarly Chromebooks are actually just fine, ok maybe not outside the context of windows/macos/chromeos. I chose the Apple lock-in because my families likes iOS, but I would have been fine with Google. If you like to tinker and own your OS there is still Linux. Professionally I think Microsoft is doing fine. They have a functional monopoly on enterprise organisations, especially the 99% (citation = made up) which aren’t tech related. So it’s probably a decent enough strategy for them. Hell, I think the primary reason they don’t have a cheap device to compete with MacBook airs and Chromebooks is because they know windows would lose.
  • john01dav 2y ago
    The assertion that Linux needs tinkering to use is absurd. Fedora, for example, works great out of the box. Some people may choose to change a few settings in a GUI but that isn't tinkering in the way that I think that you mean it and it certainly isn't unique to Linux.
    • lkirkwood 2y ago
      I used to feel this way but having installed Ubuntu on a friend's old laptop for him, it's crazy the amount of stuff you forget you do because it's second nature. I certainly think it's too far to say "absurd".
    • Aleklart 2y ago
      Installing codecs, drivers (several times by different guides usually) and disabling Red Hat telemetry from command line is what user have to do to make it usable for something more than running neofetch
• globular-toast 2y ago
  I think this is done on purpose. Many companies have basically reached perfection (or at least as good as it's going to get), but they still need to justify their existence. Another example of this is Osprey backpacks. If you bought one in the last couple of decades then it's basically all the same. But what they do is keep churning out new designs year on year, all 90% the same but they wiggle around that line of perfection ensuring some years have something good but also something bad that they can improve on next time (despite the fact the "improvement" is just from the design of 3 years back). This has been Microsoft's model also for a long time now.
  • keyringlight 2y ago
    The way I see it is that windows is infrastructure, it is a stage that other applications perform on (similar with the browser) but otherwise needs to stay in the background and their roadies be unnoticed. The trouble is there's an implied maintenance contract as the environment the software exists in only gets more hostile even if your consumer customers rarely pay for it with new licenses. Plus an expectation that you upgrade their facilities/APIs to facilitate new tech other companies have come up with in the ecosystem that gives their 'stage' value, that HDR lighting rig they want to use for their performance or new USB/networking/3D rendering/etc standard.
  • greenchair 2y ago
    bingo, they could re-release 20 something year old windows xp and people would do just fine (or better) with that interface.
• gerdesj 2y ago
  "configuring a network interface" Each network card configuration dialogue has a box for "default gateway". As a result an entire generation of people have some very strange ideas about how routing works for a host with more than one network interface. That UI has persisted since at least Win 95 and Win NT.
• rapnie 2y ago
  > I’m pretty sure others have other gripes with the “streamlined experience”. Christmas tree UX. Navigating the UI at places is like playing a RPG with all the weird intricate click paths.
• bakugo 2y ago
  On the topic of network settings, in Windows 11, the Settings app and Control Panel can actually end up conflicting if you mess with both. A while back I was messing with IPv6, trying to get it to work my desktop the way I wanted it to, and ended up in a situation where I needed to change both settings that existed only in the new Settings app and settings that existed only in Control Panel, and after a while the Settings app just started throwing an error when trying to save IP settings. The entire thing is a mess.
• mrjin 2y ago
  Cannot agree more. I actually run into much worse scenarios with network config on Windows 11 before. Could not set DNS manually with settings app. Had to turned to control panel, but again, could not set IP address manually. Tried to use command line, broken too. Eventually had to combine the 3 and spent hours to complete a simply task should have been finished in 30 seconds. For sure, that's really great experience.
• devnullbrain 2y ago
  >I’m pretty sure others have other gripes with the “streamlined experience”. A simple thing I find infuriating is that the entire 'app' is a singleton. I can't have one window open in one submenu with another window in another submenu, despite no direct relation. Every OS I regularly lose seems to have lost track of the value of multitasking. Perhaps a side effect of them being treated as a tool to launch a browser.
• jasoneckert 2y ago
  I echo your sentiment in these regards. It is much easier to do certain tasks in Control Panel (Networking and Power Options being the two biggest examples of this in my opinion), while other things are easier in Settings. I think the real problem is that Microsoft hasn't place enough focus on getting the Settings app correct from a UI/UX perspective like Apple did with their Settings app. There's nothing technical preventing them from offering a streamlined experience in Settings that allows you to easily configure advanced settings when necessary. It's just design effort on their part. If they can get their Settings app to the point where nobody wants to use Control Panel anymore, then that's the right time to deprecate it.
  • philistine 2y ago
    Microsoft can’t get any lesson from Apple and its own switch because the fundamental strategy is different. Apple completely changed its app in one go. There was no plan B, no deprecation. For this reason, the app is not has pristine as it should, with a ton of sections simply brought over without changes. Microsoft being Microsoft, they’ve chosen to inflict decades of juggling two apps on their users, with poor results.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]