7 ms·

Pretty sure it's just that Windows is horribly broken, privacy-invading, ad-ridden malware disguised as an operating system. I swear it seems like nobody at Mic

Pretty sure it's just that Windows is horribly broken, privacy-invading, ad-ridden malware disguised as an operating system. I swear it seems like nobody at Microsoft not even once have asked the actual users for what they would like to see in the OS.

jmclnx 7mo ago
And to add to this, proprietary OSs are about to get worse and can blame the politicians for it. With these new age laws, these systems can legally ask for personal information, and I am sure as time goes, information required will expand. As for Linux, seems systemd is all in on this, as for the BSDs, I doubt they will enforce these new laws.
- surgical_fire 7mo ago
  You can lie when it requests for personal information. I always identify myself as "Conan, The Barbarian" when creating account.
  - jmclnx 7mo ago
    of cource you can, but in the future ? Maybe you will be required to upload an ID.
    - josefritzishere 7mo ago
      Is it too optimistic to hope that sanity will prevail and users will get treated with respect?
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
  - gostsamo 7mo ago
    why I should be the one bothering with that though? and what happens when it starts requiring internet connection and biometric age verification?
    - intrasight 7mo ago
      In a couple years you won't have to bother with that. The device will connect to the ID chip embedded in your body when you're born. And this will be a one-time hard-wired coupling for that device when it is first turned on.
    - surgical_fire 7mo ago
      Are you claiming Linux is becoming always online? That's one hell of a claim.
      - gostsamo 7mo ago
        if it is governmently mandated that it is, it might become, at least the user facing distros.
        surgical_fire 7mo ago
        The nature of Linux makes this pretty much impossible. Say Ubuntu ships with some package for identity validation bullshit. What stops anyone from repackaging it and offering it without those packages?
        tsoukase 7mo ago
        They might force the Linux kernel to add a value 'age' to the couple username/password. Although in Europe OSS is exempt from age verification obligation.
        saltcured 7mo ago
        A bit of a tangent, but your worst case answer here is the culmination of all the secure boot and remote attestation concepts. What would stop it is a combination of not being able to buy new hardware that will even boot the modified kernel, and not being able to get vintage hardware to connect to any public ISP etc. due to being unable to attest its validated boot chain information, signed by a required modern hardware OEM key. So you would be stuck in some kind of underworld of vintage folks attempting mesh networking between themselves. Then, because of basic market forces/economics, there will be a dwindling amount of software that is able to run in such environments. It will become the esoteric realm of old-school hobbyists who don't need to run any commercial apps which require ABI/API features of the modern commercial OSs which require this boot chain of the modern commercial hardware, etc.
pydry 7mo ago
Actual users are less important to Microsoft than execs who actually purchase the licenses.
- forinti 7mo ago
  Plus it's hard to buy a computer without paying the MS tax, unless you build one yourself. That's an issue I would like to see legislated! In fact, in my country there is a law that prohibits bundled purchases: it's just that the authorities are not tech savvy enough to see it when it pertains to computers and Windows.
  - vbezhenar 7mo ago
    It makes sense, if manufacturer provides support for Linux on the same laptop SKU. But that's very rarely the case. So selling laptop without OS seems like selling half-working product. When you're buying a car, it comes with a lot of software. ECU software, multimedia software (sometimes it's Windows CE) and so on. I saw laptops selling with FreeDOS but realistically speaking I think that majority of these laptops end up with pirated Windows, so all it provides is increasing level of piracy. Ideally laptop should provide a choice between Linux and Windows on the first boot. And easy way to buy Windows license if user chooses it.
  - intrasight 7mo ago
    1. There are plenty of computers sold with Linux installed. 2. You absolutely should build the computer yourself. You get a much better computer with best of class parts. And you learn something.
    - rbanffy 7mo ago
      > 1. There are plenty of computers sold with Linux installed. Compared to what?
      - dpark 7mo ago
        Compared to a hypothetical world without computers with Linux preinstalled, presumably. “Plenty” doesn’t really seem like a relative term here, but a statement that there are enough options on the market if someone wants to buy a machine with Linux preinstalled.
mancerayder 7mo ago
The video takes this one step further, and it has nothing to do with being 'out of touch' or something. The speaker is arguing there is a macro trend of pushing us towards agentic interactions instead of the UI components we're used to. Then it can track, tune and control everything we do, thanks to all the telemetry back and forth. I wish people would engage with the content a bit. It's a huge claim (and scary).
- swed420 7mo ago
  > The speaker is arguing there is a macro trend of pushing us towards agentic interactions instead of the UI components we're used to. This trend is not even limited to Windows. We saw it begin years ago with Google etc gradually reducing the quality of search results. Then ChatGPT etc arrive shortly thereafter, and people are led to conclude "it works so much better than traditional search." Hard to believe these two events are unrelated.
  - rurp 7mo ago
    I don't know, I think a simpler explanation for Google's behavior is that monopolies act like monopolies. Combating spam and SEO junk is hard and expensive. Once they became synonymous with web search for most people they gradually cared less and less about product quality. If people will keep using the product no matter how bad the results get and how many ads get jammed in it's hard for a corporation like that to care.
    - swed420 7mo ago
      Possibly, but it makes more sense when viewed through the lens of "Google is an advertising company" rather than a search company. Also, it's not like Google went on autopilot and pursued nothing in recent years. Clearly they've dedicated resources to AI, so it's not hard to believe they foresaw potential resistance to selling the concept of AI to users and took measures to funnel them into the behavior Google desired, all the while making it appear as a choice the user was making. Google famously solved the search problem and the spam problem, and technology has only gotten more capable since then. Suggesting that blogspam etc are too difficult to defeat is a tough sell imo.
josephg 7mo ago
Nah. I think the problem is that windows and macOS did everything users wanted them to do about 10-15 years ago. Everything since then has been lipstick on a pig. If windows were a building, they need to stop tacking on more rooms like it’s a gaudy McMansion. If they really wanna keep working on it, work to make what’s already there more beautiful. Optimise. Reduce the install size. Clean up some of the decades of tech debt. Unify the different generations of UI toolkits. Write documentation. Port security critical parts to rust, where appropriate. Refine, don’t reinvent.
- Throaway1975123 7mo ago
  and it made the pig actually uglier!
- throwaway27448 7mo ago
  > did everything users wanted them to do about 10-15 years ago. Certainly not; not by a long shot. Besides, most users don't even understand the potential of software. But why bother improving it if you still make money shipping crap?
  - josephg 7mo ago
    Like what? What important user facing features were shipped in the last 10 years in windows or macOS?
- qwertygerty 7mo ago
  I agree, I've been amazed watching people release after release upgrading to newer versions of Windows and office, when what they used them for functionally didnt change. I could never make sense of how people didnt see it for what it is, and accepted the continuous costs. But hey, I guess that's capitalism, and people are captured by it. If it has a new shine, and everyone else is doing it, let's all jump over the cliff's edge.
rbanffy 7mo ago
Microsoft has a handful big clients - Dell, Lenovo, HP being the top three. They are the ones that make Windows be the default operating system on everyone's computers and they need to be happy, not the person who buys the computer. When the computer becomes unusable, they'll just get another from the same brands and everyone, except the user, are happy. Corporations don't run Windows. They run Outlook, Excel, and Teams. Windows and generic PCs (or thin clients and VDIs) is just the cheapest way to achieve that goal.
- neonstatic 7mo ago
  > They are the ones that make Windows be the default operating system on everyone's computers I've got to disagree. Macs are a fantastic option as long as the software needed to do actual work is available. That's the real bottleneck and it's not something Dell, Lenovo, or HP have any power over.
  - rbanffy 7mo ago
    They still ship a lot more computers than Apple. For most of the world, Apple is a niche product. I use it, and I love them, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking corporations will start buying Mac Minis to replace their desktops and thin clients anytime soon.
    - neonstatic 7mo ago
      I am not fooling myself and I do not care what corporations would or would not do - I simply state that the reason there is such a pressure to use Windows is not due to Dell and other providers, but software providers - mainly Microsoft.
  - Sharlin 7mo ago
    That… does not follow. Corporations simply aren't going to start buying Macs for all of their millions of rank-and-file corporate drones. Even if they wanted, and they don't, they're tied to the Windows ecosystem in all sorts of ways, even though the software lives on someone else's computer these days.
drcongo 7mo ago
[flagged]
- whatevaa 7mo ago
  Heard that most android devs use iphones. You can see that, actually, with some silly annoyances never fixed. Probably similar with Windows.
- gambiting 7mo ago
  As a single anecdote - I use Windows daily because I'm a C++ programmer in games and all console frameworks are Windows only. I also have to use MacOS every now and then to do some iOS deployments, and I don't understand how people use it daily - it feels like an operating system designed by someone who doesn't use it themselves.The UI is actually straight up horrible, not to mention window management if you don't have a touchpad - it literally makes me want to throw the stupid thing out of a window. My point is - we're all comfortable with what we know and use the most. I imagine if I used Macs all the time I'd also think that Windows is stupid.
WarmWash 7mo ago
Users want a one time payment of $150, for a 50 million LoC software product, and then get 10 years of support. Everyone here slinging mud, while getting paid out of the SaaS pot. Would windows be a better product if it was user focused but cost $40/mo? From Microsoft's POV it would probably kill numbers.
- rawgabbit 7mo ago
  Two wrongs don’t make a right. What matters is being upfront and transparent. Microsoft could just have said the initial license is just that. If you want updates be prepared to pay.
- zigzag312 7mo ago
  There are more than 10x more users than lines of code
rawgabbit 7mo ago
Microsoft is declaring all users are now corporate drones. All your activity will be tied to your Microsoft account. All your files, images, and regular screenshots of your PC will be sucked into OneDrive. If your mouse has not moved in five minutes a manager will be notified.
1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago
"I swear it seems like nobody at Microsoft no even once have asked actual users for what they would like to see in the OS." Why would they want to do that (serious question, think about it)

jmclnx 7mo ago

And to add to this, proprietary OSs are about to get worse and can blame the politicians for it. With these new age laws, these systems can legally ask for personal information, and I am sure as time goes, information required will expand. As for Linux, seems systemd is all in on this, as for the BSDs, I doubt they will enforce these new laws.

surgical_fire 7mo ago
You can lie when it requests for personal information. I always identify myself as "Conan, The Barbarian" when creating account.
- jmclnx 7mo ago
  of cource you can, but in the future ? Maybe you will be required to upload an ID.
  - josefritzishere 7mo ago
    Is it too optimistic to hope that sanity will prevail and users will get treated with respect?
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
- gostsamo 7mo ago
  why I should be the one bothering with that though? and what happens when it starts requiring internet connection and biometric age verification?
  - intrasight 7mo ago
    In a couple years you won't have to bother with that. The device will connect to the ID chip embedded in your body when you're born. And this will be a one-time hard-wired coupling for that device when it is first turned on.
  - surgical_fire 7mo ago
    Are you claiming Linux is becoming always online? That's one hell of a claim.
    - gostsamo 7mo ago
      if it is governmently mandated that it is, it might become, at least the user facing distros.
      - surgical_fire 7mo ago
        The nature of Linux makes this pretty much impossible. Say Ubuntu ships with some package for identity validation bullshit. What stops anyone from repackaging it and offering it without those packages?
        tsoukase 7mo ago
        They might force the Linux kernel to add a value 'age' to the couple username/password. Although in Europe OSS is exempt from age verification obligation.
        saltcured 7mo ago
        A bit of a tangent, but your worst case answer here is the culmination of all the secure boot and remote attestation concepts. What would stop it is a combination of not being able to buy new hardware that will even boot the modified kernel, and not being able to get vintage hardware to connect to any public ISP etc. due to being unable to attest its validated boot chain information, signed by a required modern hardware OEM key. So you would be stuck in some kind of underworld of vintage folks attempting mesh networking between themselves. Then, because of basic market forces/economics, there will be a dwindling amount of software that is able to run in such environments. It will become the esoteric realm of old-school hobbyists who don't need to run any commercial apps which require ABI/API features of the modern commercial OSs which require this boot chain of the modern commercial hardware, etc.

pydry 7mo ago

Actual users are less important to Microsoft than execs who actually purchase the licenses.

forinti 7mo ago
Plus it's hard to buy a computer without paying the MS tax, unless you build one yourself. That's an issue I would like to see legislated! In fact, in my country there is a law that prohibits bundled purchases: it's just that the authorities are not tech savvy enough to see it when it pertains to computers and Windows.
- vbezhenar 7mo ago
  It makes sense, if manufacturer provides support for Linux on the same laptop SKU. But that's very rarely the case. So selling laptop without OS seems like selling half-working product. When you're buying a car, it comes with a lot of software. ECU software, multimedia software (sometimes it's Windows CE) and so on. I saw laptops selling with FreeDOS but realistically speaking I think that majority of these laptops end up with pirated Windows, so all it provides is increasing level of piracy. Ideally laptop should provide a choice between Linux and Windows on the first boot. And easy way to buy Windows license if user chooses it.
- intrasight 7mo ago
  1. There are plenty of computers sold with Linux installed. 2. You absolutely should build the computer yourself. You get a much better computer with best of class parts. And you learn something.
  - rbanffy 7mo ago
    > 1. There are plenty of computers sold with Linux installed. Compared to what?
    - dpark 7mo ago
      Compared to a hypothetical world without computers with Linux preinstalled, presumably. “Plenty” doesn’t really seem like a relative term here, but a statement that there are enough options on the market if someone wants to buy a machine with Linux preinstalled.

mancerayder 7mo ago

The video takes this one step further, and it has nothing to do with being 'out of touch' or something. The speaker is arguing there is a macro trend of pushing us towards agentic interactions instead of the UI components we're used to. Then it can track, tune and control everything we do, thanks to all the telemetry back and forth. I wish people would engage with the content a bit. It's a huge claim (and scary).

swed420 7mo ago
> The speaker is arguing there is a macro trend of pushing us towards agentic interactions instead of the UI components we're used to. This trend is not even limited to Windows. We saw it begin years ago with Google etc gradually reducing the quality of search results. Then ChatGPT etc arrive shortly thereafter, and people are led to conclude "it works so much better than traditional search." Hard to believe these two events are unrelated.
- rurp 7mo ago
  I don't know, I think a simpler explanation for Google's behavior is that monopolies act like monopolies. Combating spam and SEO junk is hard and expensive. Once they became synonymous with web search for most people they gradually cared less and less about product quality. If people will keep using the product no matter how bad the results get and how many ads get jammed in it's hard for a corporation like that to care.
  - swed420 7mo ago
    Possibly, but it makes more sense when viewed through the lens of "Google is an advertising company" rather than a search company. Also, it's not like Google went on autopilot and pursued nothing in recent years. Clearly they've dedicated resources to AI, so it's not hard to believe they foresaw potential resistance to selling the concept of AI to users and took measures to funnel them into the behavior Google desired, all the while making it appear as a choice the user was making. Google famously solved the search problem and the spam problem, and technology has only gotten more capable since then. Suggesting that blogspam etc are too difficult to defeat is a tough sell imo.

josephg 7mo ago

Nah. I think the problem is that windows and macOS did everything users wanted them to do about 10-15 years ago. Everything since then has been lipstick on a pig. If windows were a building, they need to stop tacking on more rooms like it’s a gaudy McMansion. If they really wanna keep working on it, work to make what’s already there more beautiful. Optimise. Reduce the install size. Clean up some of the decades of tech debt. Unify the different generations of UI toolkits. Write documentation. Port security critical parts to rust, where appropriate. Refine, don’t reinvent.

Throaway1975123 7mo ago
and it made the pig actually uglier!
throwaway27448 7mo ago
> did everything users wanted them to do about 10-15 years ago. Certainly not; not by a long shot. Besides, most users don't even understand the potential of software. But why bother improving it if you still make money shipping crap?
- josephg 7mo ago
  Like what? What important user facing features were shipped in the last 10 years in windows or macOS?
qwertygerty 7mo ago
I agree, I've been amazed watching people release after release upgrading to newer versions of Windows and office, when what they used them for functionally didnt change. I could never make sense of how people didnt see it for what it is, and accepted the continuous costs. But hey, I guess that's capitalism, and people are captured by it. If it has a new shine, and everyone else is doing it, let's all jump over the cliff's edge.

rbanffy 7mo ago

Microsoft has a handful big clients - Dell, Lenovo, HP being the top three. They are the ones that make Windows be the default operating system on everyone's computers and they need to be happy, not the person who buys the computer. When the computer becomes unusable, they'll just get another from the same brands and everyone, except the user, are happy. Corporations don't run Windows. They run Outlook, Excel, and Teams. Windows and generic PCs (or thin clients and VDIs) is just the cheapest way to achieve that goal.

neonstatic 7mo ago
> They are the ones that make Windows be the default operating system on everyone's computers I've got to disagree. Macs are a fantastic option as long as the software needed to do actual work is available. That's the real bottleneck and it's not something Dell, Lenovo, or HP have any power over.
- rbanffy 7mo ago
  They still ship a lot more computers than Apple. For most of the world, Apple is a niche product. I use it, and I love them, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking corporations will start buying Mac Minis to replace their desktops and thin clients anytime soon.
  - neonstatic 7mo ago
    I am not fooling myself and I do not care what corporations would or would not do - I simply state that the reason there is such a pressure to use Windows is not due to Dell and other providers, but software providers - mainly Microsoft.
- Sharlin 7mo ago
  That… does not follow. Corporations simply aren't going to start buying Macs for all of their millions of rank-and-file corporate drones. Even if they wanted, and they don't, they're tied to the Windows ecosystem in all sorts of ways, even though the software lives on someone else's computer these days.

drcongo 7mo ago

[flagged]

whatevaa 7mo ago
Heard that most android devs use iphones. You can see that, actually, with some silly annoyances never fixed. Probably similar with Windows.
gambiting 7mo ago
As a single anecdote - I use Windows daily because I'm a C++ programmer in games and all console frameworks are Windows only. I also have to use MacOS every now and then to do some iOS deployments, and I don't understand how people use it daily - it feels like an operating system designed by someone who doesn't use it themselves.The UI is actually straight up horrible, not to mention window management if you don't have a touchpad - it literally makes me want to throw the stupid thing out of a window. My point is - we're all comfortable with what we know and use the most. I imagine if I used Macs all the time I'd also think that Windows is stupid.

WarmWash 7mo ago

Users want a one time payment of $150, for a 50 million LoC software product, and then get 10 years of support. Everyone here slinging mud, while getting paid out of the SaaS pot. Would windows be a better product if it was user focused but cost $40/mo? From Microsoft's POV it would probably kill numbers.

rawgabbit 7mo ago
Two wrongs don’t make a right. What matters is being upfront and transparent. Microsoft could just have said the initial license is just that. If you want updates be prepared to pay.
zigzag312 7mo ago
There are more than 10x more users than lines of code

rawgabbit 7mo ago

Microsoft is declaring all users are now corporate drones. All your activity will be tied to your Microsoft account. All your files, images, and regular screenshots of your PC will be sucked into OneDrive. If your mouse has not moved in five minutes a manager will be notified.

1vuio0pswjnm7 7mo ago

"I swear it seems like nobody at Microsoft no even once have asked actual users for what they would like to see in the OS." Why would they want to do that (serious question, think about it)