3 ms·

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 th

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.