4 ms·

I wish Microsoft reverted to its 1990s style of making tools for power users that don’t get in the way. Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me. Security issues a

I wish Microsoft reverted to its 1990s style of making tools for power users that don’t get in the way. Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me. Security issues aside, it was a solid OS. It also had a non-flashy interface that got out of my way. No annoying notifications, no distractions: just pure Windows. Windows 2000 respected the user. Today’s versions of Windows seem less respectful of the user. Microsoft is treating Windows as a platform to advertise Microsoft’s products rather than as strictly a productivity tool. Even if a lot of users these days use computers more like entertainment and communication devices rather than productivity tools, software should still get out of the user’s way. Software should shut up and do what the user commands. Unfortunately there are other software systems that have the same philosophy. Google constantly nags me regarding logging in and switching to Chrome. Even macOS has gotten a lot more nag screens in the past decade compared to the glory years of Jobs-era Mac OS X. It’s amazing how so many organizations are dependent on Windows, macOS, and Google for their productivity, yet these platforms have become more annoying to use over the years, becoming impediments to productivity.

sheepscreek 1y ago
TL;DR American companies are legally obligated to put the interests of shareholders before customers and employees. (Off-topic) This should explain why layoffs are so acceptable, even in the face of record profits. There’s a reason why their stock price is through the roof. Companies in the US have their first and foremost duty towards Shareholders, and only shareholders. This is not an opinion, I am speaking legally.[1] And what the shareholders want is for the company to squeeze out every dollar it possibly can from its products. [1] Shareholder Primacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- lightedman 1y ago
  "This is not an opinion, I am speaking legally" Hi, as former member of a board of directors, and also as a current shareholder in a company, you are wrong. The fiduciary duties owed to the company arise from the legal relationship between the directors and the company directed and controlled by them. The fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders do not arise from that legal relationship. Try again when you actually graduate law school. Maybe then you can speak legally about something I do PROFESSIONALLY.
  - emptysongglass 1y ago
    You're not saying anything, though you may think you are. Fiduciary duties owed to the company arising from the legal relationship between the directors and company is just legalese disguising the actual practice of public companies. In practice, every publicly held company that is not a benefit corporation serves to maximize stakeholder earnings.
  - sheepscreek 1y ago
    Yes but WHEN there is a conflict of interest, whose interest is put before the others? Within the confines of legality, companies have a lot of leeway when it comes to taking decisions that put customers and even their employees on the back-foot. I did not say I am a lawyer - but that is a Supreme Court case any lawyer would be happy to cite in the court of law.
  - whatevaa 1y ago
    Such a snarky comment won't get anybody agreeing with you. Nor yoh actually explained anything.
  - sheepscreek 1y ago
    Also, I was talking about the company’s fiduciary duties, NOT duties owed TO the company. You’re complete off the point here, sorry to say.
- v9v 1y ago
  Please read the "Significance" section of the Wikipedia article you linked. It shows that your claim that this is a legal requirement isn't as clear-cut as you make it to be.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    "...this is a legal requirement isn't as clear-cut as you make it to be." The legal legal requirement can be questioned but heaven help the modern CEO that doesn't abide by the shareholders-first ethos. Before the 1980s (before Thatcher, Reagan, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek et al era) companies had an understanding that they had a responsibility to both shareholders and the community that they operated in. That latter notion is long since dead.
- djeastm 1y ago
  From reading your source, it doesn't really sound like a legal requirement, since the "business judgment rule" kind of supersedes it. I think it's more that the people boards put in charge of businesses know which side of their bread is buttered on and naturally will try to make board members/shareholders happy or they'll be out of a job. Customers/employees are treated as just means to that end.
- maxerickson 1y ago
  You beg the question of whether the changes they make are good for shareholder value. Maybe they print money in spite of the user hostile stuff.
jwrallie 1y ago
It is really easy, they could just take LTSC and market it to a different audience, and it would be 95% there. But they won’t, because they don’t care.
- Melatonic 1y ago
  Exactly - LTSC is awesome
  - pcdoodle 1y ago
    It's like real windows again.
- dvfjsdhgfv 1y ago
  > because they don’t care. I don't think that's the right reason. They very much care about the opposite, that is, realizing their strategy of migrating from "buy-once-use-forever" to the subscription model. That's the reason they force everybody to use online user accounts and so on. LTSC is a direct threat to this model so it's practically impossible to use at home/small business legally.
Telemakhos 1y ago
> Even macOS has gotten a lot more nag screens in the past decade compared to the glory years of Jobs-era Mac OS X. I bought a new iPad the other day. I've got notifications in System Preferences advertising five different services I don't want, plus more notifications in individual apps (like an advertisement for the Apple TV subscription in the TV app, which is not the same thing as the subscription service). I don't want Apple TV, Apple-filtered News, whatever the Apple exercise thing is, or the Apple Cultural Experience: just the hardware and software I bought.
- Esophagus4 1y ago
  Yes - and the Apple Card advertisement in the wallet app. Or a persistent notification badge to turn on iCloud. I’ve made my decisions, leave me alone!
  - elros 1y ago
    > I’ve made my decisions, leave me alone! Perhaps you and GP aren't really the target market for their products. Part of why, after many years of Slackware and Arch Linux on desktops I assembled myself, compiling kernel modules, etc etc, I decided to pay Apple for the past decade is exactly because I don't want to make these decisions. Frankly I pay Apple for the following things, in order or descending importance to me: 1) Decisions / sensible defaults / ecosystem / walled garden; 2) MagSafe cable so I don't trip on cords and/or damage my machines; 3) The subjective feeling that their corporate interests are more aligned with mine than other players in the market, viz. privacy etc.; 4) Pixel density; 5) Well-built aluminum bodies; 6) Large trackpads; To be fair, I'm not saying the prompting for things I don't want (e.g. I don't consume any media services or exercise stuff) isn't annoying, but it seems to only happen once I switch devices every few years. It's been useful for me to discover services I wouldn't know about otherwise, which I now am a customer of, such as iCloud.
    - Esophagus4 1y ago
      You make a great point - I am still a Mac user because their ecosystem is thoughtful and cohesive and their computers have lasted forever. I guess I just wish they weren’t so… pushy. As a consumer, I get nudged by all kinds of companies every day, so I get a little… overstimulated (?) by it all, and sometimes just want to use it the way that I want to use the device. I’m also the guy that has turned off notifications for almost every phone app, because it feels invasive of my brain space… I want to decide when I will use an app and when I won’t.
SnuffBox 1y ago
I still use Windows 2k machines for Photoshop and other old Adobe tools that didn't have much in the way of DRM. It's an operating system that respects the user, it doesn't act as a babysitter.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  And I still have a W2K machine that I use for offline tasks, some are software related (compatibility), others support older hardware that's still functional (back then, forced/planned obsolescence wasn't quite as bigger deal). I've my ancient HP LJ-III printer connected to the PC via its parallel port.
hilbert42 1y ago
"Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me." Exactly the same here (and I've said so many times over the past 20 or so years). Sure, the W2K UI could be tarted up a little bit but no major functional changes. With security and hardware updates I'd be completely happy. Microsoft's behavior forced me into migrating to Linux (and in that I'm not alone).
- codr7 1y ago
  Same, I'm just not doing Win11, I would rather run DOS.
- jazzyjackson 1y ago
  xfce + Chicago 95 is a lovely environment https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95 https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95
- amy_petrik 1y ago
  "Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me." Windows ME was peak windows to 2000
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
> Today’s versions of Windows seem less respectful of the user. This is a massive understatement. These days Microsoft is openly and aggressively hostile to the user and its getting worse every update. This is yet another of the curses of monopoly, the monopolists will eventually hold those under its sway with utter contempt. They are going to do things their way, and you are going to take it.
- foobarian 1y ago
  I don't think it has to do with monopoly, adtech is the problem IMO. If you are not on the adtech train you lose
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
    In a truly competitive market with many equal(-ish) players, then the software with things people hate most, like adtech, would lose out to those that ones that provide what people want the most, like speed/stability/usability.
    - foobarian 1y ago
      Do you think so? The problem with adtech is that it subsidizes the products by trading a margin of annoyance for extra revenue, allowing lower consumer prices. I would argue that the current market already does have many evenly matched players, and they naturally gravitate toward an equilibrium where they have as many revenue-bearing annoying features as the market will bear. As an example of a correction I recall the old days of popover and popunder windows that were worse than today's run of the mill site. This is why it's hard to find an affordable dumb modern TV. They do exist, but they are pricy and made in small volumes. The market has spoken loud and clear.
- cesarb 1y ago
  > > Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me. > These days Microsoft is openly and aggressively hostile to the user and its getting worse every update. In my opinion, the moment at which Microsoft started being actively hostile to the user was when they added WGA in the Windows XP era. Its existence meant that the owner of the computer would no longer be considered a trusted party; that piece of code was actively working against the computer owner. That led Microsoft to gradually adopt a mindset in which the owner of the computer is no longer supposed to be in control of the computer. That mindset got even stronger with the addition of DRM (which treats computer owners as if they were actively malicious), and with malware protection measures like Secure Boot and Kernel Patch Protection (which treat only code explicitly authorized by Microsoft as reliable).
rayiner 1y ago
I am persuaded Microsoft’s current team couldn’t build win2k again.
- LeifCarrotson 1y ago
  They've got the talent (and almost 10x the headcount), it's the organizational architecture and perverse incentives that would (and do) prevent them from building it. It wasn't a lack of talent that caused a team to decide to put "Microsoft Rewards" ads that look like phishing scams on start menus and in notifications. Instead, some PM got a bonus or promotion for making and increasing usage of this awful product, degrading the user experience and siphoning off a tiny amount of money. A different organization would have had the ability to realize that's a terrible "feature" to add to the OS.
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    I think that "current team" refers to the entire team, not just the software devs. It includes the PMs, marketing people, etc. as well. I think that rayiner is correct, Microsoft isn't capable of making something as good as win2k or win7 anymore.
zahlman 1y ago
> It’s amazing how so many organizations are dependent on Windows, macOS, and Google for their productivity, yet these platforms have become more annoying to use over the years, becoming impediments to productivity. "Extinguish" is out; "Enshittify" is in. (Maybe the other Es have also changed.)
wappieslurkz 1y ago
"Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me. " Exactly, Windows 2000 was such a comfortable workhorse. And lightning fast, it made me doubt why I was a Mac head. I switched briefly until OS X grew up and surpassed any version of Windows in reliability and versatility (for me).

sheepscreek 1y ago

TL;DR American companies are legally obligated to put the interests of shareholders before customers and employees. (Off-topic) This should explain why layoffs are so acceptable, even in the face of record profits. There’s a reason why their stock price is through the roof. Companies in the US have their first and foremost duty towards Shareholders, and only shareholders. This is not an opinion, I am speaking legally.[1] And what the shareholders want is for the company to squeeze out every dollar it possibly can from its products. [1] Shareholder Primacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

lightedman 1y ago
"This is not an opinion, I am speaking legally" Hi, as former member of a board of directors, and also as a current shareholder in a company, you are wrong. The fiduciary duties owed to the company arise from the legal relationship between the directors and the company directed and controlled by them. The fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders do not arise from that legal relationship. Try again when you actually graduate law school. Maybe then you can speak legally about something I do PROFESSIONALLY.
- emptysongglass 1y ago
  You're not saying anything, though you may think you are. Fiduciary duties owed to the company arising from the legal relationship between the directors and company is just legalese disguising the actual practice of public companies. In practice, every publicly held company that is not a benefit corporation serves to maximize stakeholder earnings.
- sheepscreek 1y ago
  Yes but WHEN there is a conflict of interest, whose interest is put before the others? Within the confines of legality, companies have a lot of leeway when it comes to taking decisions that put customers and even their employees on the back-foot. I did not say I am a lawyer - but that is a Supreme Court case any lawyer would be happy to cite in the court of law.
- whatevaa 1y ago
  Such a snarky comment won't get anybody agreeing with you. Nor yoh actually explained anything.
- sheepscreek 1y ago
  Also, I was talking about the company’s fiduciary duties, NOT duties owed TO the company. You’re complete off the point here, sorry to say.
v9v 1y ago
Please read the "Significance" section of the Wikipedia article you linked. It shows that your claim that this is a legal requirement isn't as clear-cut as you make it to be.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "...this is a legal requirement isn't as clear-cut as you make it to be." The legal legal requirement can be questioned but heaven help the modern CEO that doesn't abide by the shareholders-first ethos. Before the 1980s (before Thatcher, Reagan, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek et al era) companies had an understanding that they had a responsibility to both shareholders and the community that they operated in. That latter notion is long since dead.
djeastm 1y ago
From reading your source, it doesn't really sound like a legal requirement, since the "business judgment rule" kind of supersedes it. I think it's more that the people boards put in charge of businesses know which side of their bread is buttered on and naturally will try to make board members/shareholders happy or they'll be out of a job. Customers/employees are treated as just means to that end.
maxerickson 1y ago
You beg the question of whether the changes they make are good for shareholder value. Maybe they print money in spite of the user hostile stuff.

jwrallie 1y ago

It is really easy, they could just take LTSC and market it to a different audience, and it would be 95% there. But they won’t, because they don’t care.

Melatonic 1y ago
Exactly - LTSC is awesome
- pcdoodle 1y ago
  It's like real windows again.
dvfjsdhgfv 1y ago
> because they don’t care. I don't think that's the right reason. They very much care about the opposite, that is, realizing their strategy of migrating from "buy-once-use-forever" to the subscription model. That's the reason they force everybody to use online user accounts and so on. LTSC is a direct threat to this model so it's practically impossible to use at home/small business legally.

Telemakhos 1y ago

> Even macOS has gotten a lot more nag screens in the past decade compared to the glory years of Jobs-era Mac OS X. I bought a new iPad the other day. I've got notifications in System Preferences advertising five different services I don't want, plus more notifications in individual apps (like an advertisement for the Apple TV subscription in the TV app, which is not the same thing as the subscription service). I don't want Apple TV, Apple-filtered News, whatever the Apple exercise thing is, or the Apple Cultural Experience: just the hardware and software I bought.

Esophagus4 1y ago
Yes - and the Apple Card advertisement in the wallet app. Or a persistent notification badge to turn on iCloud. I’ve made my decisions, leave me alone!
- elros 1y ago
  > I’ve made my decisions, leave me alone! Perhaps you and GP aren't really the target market for their products. Part of why, after many years of Slackware and Arch Linux on desktops I assembled myself, compiling kernel modules, etc etc, I decided to pay Apple for the past decade is exactly because I don't want to make these decisions. Frankly I pay Apple for the following things, in order or descending importance to me: 1) Decisions / sensible defaults / ecosystem / walled garden; 2) MagSafe cable so I don't trip on cords and/or damage my machines; 3) The subjective feeling that their corporate interests are more aligned with mine than other players in the market, viz. privacy etc.; 4) Pixel density; 5) Well-built aluminum bodies; 6) Large trackpads; To be fair, I'm not saying the prompting for things I don't want (e.g. I don't consume any media services or exercise stuff) isn't annoying, but it seems to only happen once I switch devices every few years. It's been useful for me to discover services I wouldn't know about otherwise, which I now am a customer of, such as iCloud.
  - Esophagus4 1y ago
    You make a great point - I am still a Mac user because their ecosystem is thoughtful and cohesive and their computers have lasted forever. I guess I just wish they weren’t so… pushy. As a consumer, I get nudged by all kinds of companies every day, so I get a little… overstimulated (?) by it all, and sometimes just want to use it the way that I want to use the device. I’m also the guy that has turned off notifications for almost every phone app, because it feels invasive of my brain space… I want to decide when I will use an app and when I won’t.

SnuffBox 1y ago

I still use Windows 2k machines for Photoshop and other old Adobe tools that didn't have much in the way of DRM. It's an operating system that respects the user, it doesn't act as a babysitter.

hilbert42 1y ago
And I still have a W2K machine that I use for offline tasks, some are software related (compatibility), others support older hardware that's still functional (back then, forced/planned obsolescence wasn't quite as bigger deal). I've my ancient HP LJ-III printer connected to the PC via its parallel port.

hilbert42 1y ago

"Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me." Exactly the same here (and I've said so many times over the past 20 or so years). Sure, the W2K UI could be tarted up a little bit but no major functional changes. With security and hardware updates I'd be completely happy. Microsoft's behavior forced me into migrating to Linux (and in that I'm not alone).

codr7 1y ago
Same, I'm just not doing Win11, I would rather run DOS.
jazzyjackson 1y ago
xfce + Chicago 95 is a lovely environment https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95 https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95
amy_petrik 1y ago
"Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me." Windows ME was peak windows to 2000

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago

> Today’s versions of Windows seem less respectful of the user. This is a massive understatement. These days Microsoft is openly and aggressively hostile to the user and its getting worse every update. This is yet another of the curses of monopoly, the monopolists will eventually hold those under its sway with utter contempt. They are going to do things their way, and you are going to take it.

foobarian 1y ago
I don't think it has to do with monopoly, adtech is the problem IMO. If you are not on the adtech train you lose
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
  In a truly competitive market with many equal(-ish) players, then the software with things people hate most, like adtech, would lose out to those that ones that provide what people want the most, like speed/stability/usability.
  - foobarian 1y ago
    Do you think so? The problem with adtech is that it subsidizes the products by trading a margin of annoyance for extra revenue, allowing lower consumer prices. I would argue that the current market already does have many evenly matched players, and they naturally gravitate toward an equilibrium where they have as many revenue-bearing annoying features as the market will bear. As an example of a correction I recall the old days of popover and popunder windows that were worse than today's run of the mill site. This is why it's hard to find an affordable dumb modern TV. They do exist, but they are pricy and made in small volumes. The market has spoken loud and clear.
cesarb 1y ago
> > Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me. > These days Microsoft is openly and aggressively hostile to the user and its getting worse every update. In my opinion, the moment at which Microsoft started being actively hostile to the user was when they added WGA in the Windows XP era. Its existence meant that the owner of the computer would no longer be considered a trusted party; that piece of code was actively working against the computer owner. That led Microsoft to gradually adopt a mindset in which the owner of the computer is no longer supposed to be in control of the computer. That mindset got even stronger with the addition of DRM (which treats computer owners as if they were actively malicious), and with malware protection measures like Secure Boot and Kernel Patch Protection (which treat only code explicitly authorized by Microsoft as reliable).

rayiner 1y ago

I am persuaded Microsoft’s current team couldn’t build win2k again.

LeifCarrotson 1y ago
They've got the talent (and almost 10x the headcount), it's the organizational architecture and perverse incentives that would (and do) prevent them from building it. It wasn't a lack of talent that caused a team to decide to put "Microsoft Rewards" ads that look like phishing scams on start menus and in notifications. Instead, some PM got a bonus or promotion for making and increasing usage of this awful product, degrading the user experience and siphoning off a tiny amount of money. A different organization would have had the ability to realize that's a terrible "feature" to add to the OS.
- JohnFen 1y ago
  I think that "current team" refers to the entire team, not just the software devs. It includes the PMs, marketing people, etc. as well. I think that rayiner is correct, Microsoft isn't capable of making something as good as win2k or win7 anymore.

zahlman 1y ago

> It’s amazing how so many organizations are dependent on Windows, macOS, and Google for their productivity, yet these platforms have become more annoying to use over the years, becoming impediments to productivity. "Extinguish" is out; "Enshittify" is in. (Maybe the other Es have also changed.)

wappieslurkz 1y ago

"Windows 2000 was peak Windows to me. " Exactly, Windows 2000 was such a comfortable workhorse. And lightning fast, it made me doubt why I was a Mac head. I switched briefly until OS X grew up and surpassed any version of Windows in reliability and versatility (for me).