Windows 11 leak reveals new UI, Start menu, and more (UPDATE - added source for Windows 10 retirement date)

[SmokeRngs]

Yes, because with the replacement of the kernel, the drivers would have to be rebuilt from the ground up. That means all that old hardware will not work anymore and therefore, the comparison is spot on.

Edit: Oh, and the paid software companies would ONLY develop new versions, that users would have to pay for the new software. The fact is, Microsoft is not known for their sticking with something that is outside of the norm and also, backwards compatibility may blow up.

Edit 2: Basically, if it does not make the hardware and software developers money, they are not going to do it. Can you just imagine all the bitching that would happen here, alone, because their hardware and software does not work anymore?

You mean like how absolutely no hardware runs under Linux. Oh, wait. Somehow the hardware in my sig runs just fine on Linux. According to you that would be impossible.

What does having to pay for new software have to do with anything? You have to pay for new versions on Windows now. How would that change anything? Current software would likely be easy enough to port over to Linux for most things. Quite a bit of older software already can work under Linux with Wine. And to make Wine compatibility leaps and bounds better would only require some help from MS as well as MS allowing Wine to use the actual MS APIs and libraries instead of reverse engineering everything and making sure it works different enough from MS's actual IP so they don't get sued or required to remove it.

What is this crap about hardware and software developers? They're going to put their software and hardware on whatever platform is going to make them money. Guess what, hardware and software developers aren't going to say fuck it and shut down their businesses if MS stopped using the NT kernel. Every single thing you've said here is absolutely absurd.

It wouldn't be Linux either, at least a traditional Linux desktop. Android uses the Linux kernel but I wouldn't call Android a traditional Linux distro. Microsoft would create a very custom kernel for Windows that wouldn't be compatible with any Linux distro.


If done right, Microsoft wouldn't worry about drivers anymore as the Linux kernel would handle those things. I doubt Microsoft would handle it the same as Ubuntu or Arch would but I'm sure they'd take advantage of the vast supported hardware that exists in the Linux kernel.

There's no point in MS not using the standard kernel. Rolling their own proprietary kernel would defeat the purpose of swapping in the first place because MS would be required to put a ton of time, effort and money into it. The only real difference would be in whatever desktop environment MS would create and how their own software and APIs would integrate.

MS wouldn't have to worry about drivers at all. All hardware manufacturers would have to write and submit their drivers to the Linux kernel or try to go the proprietary route like nVidia does. MS would be completely out of the driver game which has to be a huge cost savings. Axing the WHQL program alone would have to free up a ton of resources not to mention remove MS from blame for driver problems. No longer having to deal with the driver situation alone should be enough to push MS into abandoning the NT kernel for Linux.

 

[ManofGod]

You mean like how absolutely no hardware runs under Linux. Oh, wait. Somehow the hardware in my sig runs just fine on Linux. According to you that would be impossible.

What does having to pay for new software have to do with anything? You have to pay for new versions on Windows now. How would that change anything? Current software would likely be easy enough to port over to Linux for most things. Quite a bit of older software already can work under Linux with Wine. And to make Wine compatibility leaps and bounds better would only require some help from MS as well as MS allowing Wine to use the actual MS APIs and libraries instead of reverse engineering everything and making sure it works different enough from MS's actual IP so they don't get sued or required to remove it.

What is this crap about hardware and software developers? They're going to put their software and hardware on whatever platform is going to make them money. Guess what, hardware and software developers aren't going to say fuck it and shut down their businesses if MS stopped using the NT kernel. Every single thing you've said here is absolutely absurd.

There's no point in MS not using the standard kernel. Rolling their own proprietary kernel would defeat the purpose of swapping in the first place because MS would be required to put a ton of time, effort and money into it. The only real difference would be in whatever desktop environment MS would create and how their own software and APIs would integrate.

MS wouldn't have to worry about drivers at all. All hardware manufacturers would have to write and submit their drivers to the Linux kernel or try to go the proprietary route like nVidia does. MS would be completely out of the driver game which has to be a huge cost savings. Axing the WHQL program alone would have to free up a ton of resources not to mention remove MS from blame for driver problems. No longer having to deal with the driver situation alone should be enough to push MS into abandoning the NT kernel for Linux.

Nothing I have said is absurd at all, it is just absurd to your way of thinking. I deal with Microsoft as they are, you are thinking of Microsoft as they have never really been. Hey, if it happens, it happens but, I do not see it succeeding and Microsoft just sticking with what they already have. They may give it a try, find it is it to difficult to stick with something for more than a short time and abandon the effort, like they normally do.

 

[pendragon1]

 

[cybereality]

When did piracy become cool again?

 

[DukenukemX]

There's no point in MS not using the standard kernel. Rolling their own proprietary kernel would defeat the purpose of swapping in the first place because MS would be required to put a ton of time, effort and money into it. The only real difference would be in whatever desktop environment MS would create and how their own software and APIs would integrate.

I don't see Microsoft just taking the Linux kernel and just slapping a Windows UI on it and calling it a day. A lot of work would need to be done because I'm sure Microsoft is also concerned about backwards compatibility. I imagine once they have a kernel that works the way they want it to, then it's just a matter of applying certain Linux kernel updates they like to their kernel.

MS wouldn't have to worry about drivers at all. All hardware manufacturers would have to write and submit their drivers to the Linux kernel or try to go the proprietary route like nVidia does. MS would be completely out of the driver game which has to be a huge cost savings. Axing the WHQL program alone would have to free up a ton of resources not to mention remove MS from blame for driver problems. No longer having to deal with the driver situation alone should be enough to push MS into abandoning the NT kernel for Linux.

Microsoft would have to force developers to donate code to the linux kernel, but lots of other stuff would have to be done including the ability to install drivers, which means WHQL isn't going anywhere. The amount of work to make the Linux kernel very Windows friendly would be a huge undertaking. Once done I can see Microsoft putting in minimal effort to maintain security patches and hardware support.

 

[DukenukemX]

When did piracy become cool again?

 

[SmokeRngs]

Nothing I have said is absurd at all, it is just absurd to your way of thinking. I deal with Microsoft as they are, you are thinking of Microsoft as they have never really been. Hey, if it happens, it happens but, I do not see it succeeding and Microsoft just sticking with what they already have. They may give it a try, find it is it to difficult to stick with something for more than a short time and abandon the effort, like they normally do.

You said no old hardware would work anymore if MS dumped Windows as it is. That's a flat out lie and you know it. Tons of hardware works just fine on Linux and that's even without needing to install a single driver. You also stated that if MS dumped Windows as it is that practically all software vendors would shut their doors and never produce anything again. That's also flat out stupid.

No, you're thinking of MS as it used to be. MS used to want to run the world with Windows and by extension control basically all software to an extent through that. Perfect examples being DirectX and IE. That plan was killed long ago and is evidenced by the fact that MS abandoned real OS development years ago. Windows is currently and for the foreseeable future a lead weight dragging on the company. Windows is not the revenue generator it once was for the company and has been a liability for years.

MS doesn't need Windows for practically any of the other aspects of the company. It's the other products and services which make the company money and the obvious lack of interest and resources for OS development shows it. Windows has been in a holding pattern for years with little more than cosmetic changes and tons of added spyware. MS doesn't need the hassle and cost of a full OS to continue to do those things.

 

[ManofGod]

You said no old hardware would work anymore if MS dumped Windows as it is. That's a flat out lie and you know it. Tons of hardware works just fine on Linux and that's even without needing to install a single driver. You also stated that if MS dumped Windows as it is that practically all software vendors would shut their doors and never produce anything again. That's also flat out stupid.

No, you're thinking of MS as it used to be. MS used to want to run the world with Windows and by extension control basically all software to an extent through that. Perfect examples being DirectX and IE. That plan was killed long ago and is evidenced by the fact that MS abandoned real OS development years ago. Windows is currently and for the foreseeable future a lead weight dragging on the company. Windows is not the revenue generator it once was for the company and has been a liability for years.

MS doesn't need Windows for practically any of the other aspects of the company. It's the other products and services which make the company money and the obvious lack of interest and resources for OS development shows it. Windows has been in a holding pattern for years with little more than cosmetic changes and tons of added spyware. MS doesn't need the hassle and cost of a full OS to continue to do those things.

Well, I see where the problem is, you claim that I said things according to what you think I said, not what I actually said. Also, even if the kernel was tested to with Windows, it would still make not Windows as the same as Linux. Oh well, no need to go further, you have assumed what I am saying and nothing will dissuade you from it, enjoy. (Que you trying to prove what you say I said is what I said. )

Basically, they may try it, find out it takes to much effort to make it happen and simply abandon it, like so many other things they have attempted.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Well, I see where the problem is, you claim that I said things according to what you think I said, not what I actually said. Also, even if the kernel was tested to with Windows, it would still make not Windows as the same as Linux. Oh well, no need to go further, you have assumed what I am saying and nothing will dissuade you from it, enjoy. (Que you trying to prove what you say I said is what I said. )

I quoted your post. You can go back and read it so you can see that you said exactly what you said which is what I replied to.

 

[Armenius]

XP wasn't bad at all and was probably Microsofts best OS ever. It's just that XP lasted far too long and Microsoft was trying to push people onto Vista and Windows 7 to the point where Microsoft started to intentionally ignore security fixes on XP. Also, Microsoft was ill prepared for the popularity of XP and the amount of attention it would bring in terms of virus's and malware. XP is bad by today's standards but back in the early 2000's is was amazing.

Windows releases get extended support for 10 years from retail release. For XP extended support originally ended in 2012, but they pushed it back for a further 2 years. Microsoft always "intentionally ignores" security fixes according to their development schedule. It wasn't some scheme that was cooked up to just force people to move on from XP.

 

[Wat]

In the grand scheme if things, this is a small complaint, but it is something that annoys the vrap out of me and negatively affects my work.

Someone, for some reason decided that the active and inactive titlebars for w10/server2016 should both be the same color. Why????

Better yet, there is no way to change this without editing The registry. Why?????

There is no way to change the visible window border either. It is invisible. Why?????

I typically have a bunch of non-fullscreen windows open and have to switch back and forth often. Having the same titlebar color and no borders makes identifying a window Way more difficult that it should be.... or was in previous versions of windows.

I often travel to customer sites and remote into computers that are not mine. Most customers do not approve of someone messing with the registry just to make the ui work like it used to.

Why can't we keep the classic UI for people that don't want or need the flashy eye candy phone UI? I need to get work done, not Skype with grandma.

 

[Jagger100]

Didn't they have a Gui in the 90's with an innocuous name like 'Bob' where there was a launch bar with 1/2 dozen apps on it. ONly difference that bar was about mid-screen. It was for home/kids?

Checking they did, but it had a bunch of graphical nonsense with it. I swear they had a stripped down Bob, though.

 

[Jagger100]

This is completely unnecessary. They are showing you who is Boss. This is your feudal lord coming into your house and having his way with your wife on your kitchen table. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[pendragon1]

This is completely unnecessary. They are showing you who is Boss. This is your feudal lord coming into your house and having his way with your wife on your kitchen table. Nothing more, nothing less.

lol ok...

 

[Aurelius]

Didn't they have a Gui in the 90's with an innocuous name like 'Bob' where there was a launch bar with 1/2 dozen apps on it. ONly difference that bar was about mid-screen. It was for home/kids?

Checking they did, but it had a bunch of graphical nonsense with it. I swear they had a stripped down Bob, though.

Microsoft Bob was the stripped down software. It was meant to make computers accessible to absolute newcomers by translating them to pre-computer metaphors. Think of it like taking skeuomorphism (where digital objects mimic their real-life equivalents) to its logical extreme.

The Windows 11 interface with the centered app bar is... not that. It's an interface more explicitly designed for touch, with a dash of Apple envy (but poorly executed) thrown in.

 

[Aurelius]

Not the consumers problem. Apple was quick to dump PowerPC in favor of x86 because they aren't going to develop OS's for both platforms for very long.

But it is the consumer's problem. If a company has to keep designing an OS on the assumption that it will run an outdated architecture, that limits what the company can do with that OS going forward.

There are already very real examples of this. Windows on ARM has been held back in part because Microsoft was tied to 32-bit hardware for too long. It only just started offering rudimentary emulation of 64-bit x86 apps on ARM machines this year... this year. If it hadn't been chained to 32-bit, it would have focused on supporting 64-bit apps and thus giving ARM users compatibility with a full suite of Windows apps, not just ancient ones. And let's not forget Android! Where Apple completely cut off 32-bit iOS apps in 2018, Google only started requiring 64-bit code in 2019... four years after Apple made the same move. That gave Apple a tremendous head start on optimizing for 64-bit code.

What is evidence to you? An Apple website that claims Linux is better than MacOS? It's not hard math. Apple uses Linux for security then Linux > MacOS for security. By Apple's own admission, Linux is better at security, just because they use it. Just like you using Windows for gaming instead of MacOS means Windows is better at gaming. Same logic.

It's really not hard. You need to show that Linux's policies and track record demonstrate better security. Is there a rule that isn't available on macOS that better thwarts intruders? Are malware and cyberattack numbers disproportionately much lower than they are on the Mac? All you've shown is that Apple has some reason to use Linux over macOS for servers; you haven't shown that security is that reason.

The reason Apple couldn't get into servers is because Apple would have to allow people to build them and look a the Mac OS source code. You aren't going to trust Apple, Microsoft, or anyone with closed source software just because of the amount of data collecting going on today. In the past sure but that's before people woke up to the possibility that companies are data collecting.

No, not really. Many servers are pre-bulit examples from major companies like Dell and HP, and many of them still run closed-source Windows. Linux has definitely been on the rise, but you don't know that access to source code is the main reason for that; what about boring things like licensing costs, or access to specific software?

Creative and 3dfx I understand by not Nvidia and AMD? Also what does building a computer have to do with closed standards?

All four of those companies are (or were) parts makers, and even NVIDIA has very few complete products of its own. Its current consumer offerings are... a couple of Android TV boxes. Their proprietary frameworks failed in part because those companies don't really have control over the full stack the way Apple does, and they certainly don't have a huge ecosystem of products ranging from phones to tablets to computers. Metal stands a better chance due to its guaranteed ubiquity and optimization on a large platform. It's an important, generally useful technology built into the OS for every iPhone, iPad, and Mac — and there are many, many of those products on sale. EAX, PhysX, and Glide failed in part because they were niche technologies that not only weren't present in many PCs, but required special code and provided only limited usefulness.

You see what I'm getting at? Metal is proprietary, but it's also not limited to a subset of a subset like so many of the examples you provided. There is a large audience for it, even if Mac games are likely to be iPhone- and iPad-oriented games that were fine-tuned for computers.

 

[GotNoRice]

I beg to differ. Companies prefer monthly costs versus 1 time yearly cost or 3-5 year cycles. Windows as a subscription will go as easily as M365 has for big companies. MS is making it stupid easy to manage all your MS licensing in 1 place and companies want this simplicity.

If all us "hardcore" IT people really had a say in what companies bought, Linux would run the corporate world, but it does not, because we really do not have the "power" over people we may want to think we do...

You do realize that there are companies outside of the "corporate world", right? The backbone of the economy (not the stock market, but the actual economy) is not the "corporate world", but rather the millions of small businesses that exist. Those small businesses, as well as normal everyday consumers, are absolutely influenced by "IT people". There have been numerous times over the years where I've consulted with small business owners that I work with (not to mention countless individual consumers) and steered them away from half-baked ideas like going all-Apple or switching to Chromebooks.

While the "corporate world" might be happy with monthly subscriptions, small businesses and consumers certainly are NOT. Many/most small businesses are still running versions of Office that are 10 years old or more. You really think they are going to go from paying for Office once every decade to paying every month?

 

[cybereality]

I don't even know with Microsoft. I have Office 365 installed on my machine already, even though I never installed it, and it seems to work fine even though I've never paid for it. Some business model.

 

[pendragon1]

I don't even know with Microsoft. I have Office 365 installed on my machine already, even though I never installed it, and it seems to work fine even though I've never paid for it. Some business model.

it may have been included with the unit. i got a free copy with/on my phone. the "pre-load" everyone complains about, it really just a shortcut to office online.

 

[nilepez]

I think you’re a bit off here.

MS charge for win 11? People pay for what’s easy. Oh have to upgrade a computer? OS isn’t what prohibits them. Oh it comes with Win11? Yep they paid for it.

Oh you’re an enthusiast? Gotta have it. When you’re forced or believe you need it. You will upgrade.

Oh you’re a business? You’re not going to spend that cash retraining everyone for Linux. You’re going to do a subscription.

So your statement of nobody buying it is off. By a margin of a lot.

Just like every version of Windows the next one will ruin life as we know it. Yet regardless most will update to it. One way or another.

By the time 10 loses support, everyone on here will suddenly be pining for that awesome OS, just like they pined for XP (after they hated it) and after they pined for 7 (after this board had people screaming that the start menu was a radical change that business users wouldn't be able to handle without significant training).

The more windows changes, the more the [H] crowd stays the same.

 

[nilepez]

it may have been included with the unit. i got a free copy with/on my phone. the "pre-load" everyone complains about, it really just a shortcut to office online.

I think they gave away a limited version with one of the feature updates...probably 20H2, because I don't have it, but my parents do and they're one version ahead of me. It def didn't come with the H/W, bc I built their machines and my dad's predates office 365 by several years (time for an upgrade come thanksgiving, I guess).

 

[DukenukemX]

But it is the consumer's problem. If a company has to keep designing an OS on the assumption that it will run an outdated architecture, that limits what the company can do with that OS going forward.

Windows, Linux, and Android all support all kinds of hardware including outdated hardware, but MacOS is special in that the resources put to supporting older hardware could slow down development on newer hardware? From Apple who has more off shore money than anybody else? Really?

There are already very real examples of this. Windows on ARM has been held back in part because Microsoft was tied to 32-bit hardware for too long. It only just started offering rudimentary emulation of 64-bit x86 apps on ARM machines this year... this year. If it hadn't been chained to 32-bit, it would have focused on supporting 64-bit apps and thus giving ARM users compatibility with a full suite of Windows apps, not just ancient ones.

What is holding back ARM on Windows is the fact that Wintel is a juggernaut. First, Microsoft forced users to download apps through only their app store. They also didn't have any backwards compatibility as you stated. The real big issue is that most apps created are made for x86, and that's going to be a huge problem for ARM on Windows and ARM on Mac. Nobody in their right mind would buy an ARM based Windows laptop without realizing that most of their older x86 apps either won't run or will run slow. This is the reason why Apple going ARM is going to be a huge mistake. I guarantee you at some point Apple will release Intel based Macs in the future because the sales will slump. They already lost top spot in hardware sales. You wanna know why there isn't a year of Linux? Because Wintel is just too big to topple. Even Microsoft can't stop Wintel.

And let's not forget Android! Where Apple completely cut off 32-bit iOS apps in 2018, Google only started requiring 64-bit code in 2019... four years after Apple made the same move. That gave Apple a tremendous head start on optimizing for 64-bit code.

Ok and...? Without 32-bit support doesn't that screw over the end users?

It's really not hard. You need to show that Linux's policies and track record demonstrate better security.

I can't and you know that. The overwhelming majority of servers on the internet run Linux, for a reason.

Are malware and cyberattack numbers disproportionately much lower than they are on the Mac?

Obviously yes.

All you've shown is that Apple has some reason to use Linux over macOS for servers; you haven't shown that security is that reason.

So why you think they use Linux?

No, not really. Many servers are pre-bulit examples from major companies like Dell and HP, and many of them still run closed-source Windows. Linux has definitely been on the rise, but you don't know that access to source code is the main reason for that; what about boring things like licensing costs, or access to specific software?

Licensing costs have a lot to do with it as well but it is also about control. If something goes wrong on Windows or Mac then you need to contact Microsoft or Apple to see what can be done about it. A linux server is open source so an IT guy can actually bisect the code to see when an update caused the security hole to appear. Can easily contact someone like Fedora to fix it and get the fix the same day. While with Microsoft or Apple you could be fanning your balls waiting to see what can be done. Again, all code has bugs but open source makes it easier to find them.

All four of those companies are (or were) parts makers, and even NVIDIA has very few complete products of its own. Its current consumer offerings are... a couple of Android TV boxes.

Nvidia is also making servers with ARM chips. Also parts doesn't matter because the point is that closed standards fail. Doesn't matter who makes it because in the end all closed standards fail.

Their proprietary frameworks failed in part because those companies don't really have control over the full stack the way Apple does, and they certainly don't have a huge ecosystem of products ranging from phones to tablets to computers.

They all failed for the same reason Metal will fail and that's because nobody has time to learn all competing standards. Doesn't matter how many products Apple has because they don't have enough market share compared to the 90% that exists. Not only is Apple ARM but Metal as well. You're asking developers to rewrite code for your 10% market share. iOS is different because majority of whales exist on Apple devices and therefore the amount of sales on those devices are greater than those on Android. That doesn't mean developers are going to port app onto ARM MacOS.

Metal stands a better chance due to its guaranteed ubiquity and optimization on a large platform. It's an important, generally useful technology built into the OS for every iPhone, iPad, and Mac — and there are many, many of those products on sale. EAX, PhysX, and Glide failed in part because they were niche technologies that not only weren't present in many PCs, but required special code and provided only limited usefulness.

Metal is so unique that MoltenVK is able to avoid needing to learn it. There's nothing special about Metal other than it's actually missing features compared to Vulkan. Yep, that's a thing.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

By the time 10 loses support, everyone on here will suddenly be pining for that awesome OS, just like they pined for XP (after they hated it) and after they pined for 7 (after this board had people screaming that the start menu was a radical change that business users wouldn't be able to handle without significant training).

The more windows changes, the more the [H] crowd stays the same.

Well, yeah, obviously, because with every single release since Windows 7, Microsoft has become more and more anti-consumer, spyware happy, and trying to push people towards their pre-installed cloud services.

They implement their agenda just slowly enough that those who complain can be dismissed as over reacting, yet they get what they want in the long term anyway, same way Google, Facebook, Amazon and th elike ushered in the modern evil surveillance society.

 

[MrGuvernment]

You do realize that there are companies outside of the "corporate world", right? The backbone of the economy (not the stock market, but the actual economy) is not the "corporate world", but rather the millions of small businesses that exist. Those small businesses, as well as normal everyday consumers, are absolutely influenced by "IT people". There have been numerous times over the years where I've consulted with small business owners that I work with (not to mention countless individual consumers) and steered them away from half-baked ideas like going all-Apple or switching to Chromebooks.

While the "corporate world" might be happy with monthly subscriptions, small businesses and consumers certainly are NOT. Many/most small businesses are still running versions of Office that are 10 years old or more. You really think they are going to go from paying for Office once every decade to paying every month?

They are not MS primary customers or money makers. I still stand by what i said. Some companies alone are the size of all of those tiny mom and pop shops combined and spend millions to 10's of millions more with MS.

 

[AceGoober]

However Microsoft has designed Windows 11, I'm sure I'll adjust accordingly.

Unless it is a big pile of burning dung as Windows Me and Vista were then I'll pass.

 

[ElementDave]

In the grand scheme if things, this is a small complaint, but it is something that annoys the vrap out of me and negatively affects my work.

Someone, for some reason decided that the active and inactive titlebars for w10/server2016 should both be the same color. Why????

Better yet, there is no way to change this without editing The registry. Why?????

There is no way to change the visible window border either. It is invisible. Why?????

No complaints about the teeny tiny disappearing scrollbars?

 

[cybereality]

So Microsoft is making the most money from their cloud services. More than Office, more than Windows, and more than Xbox.

And since their cloud primarily runs on Linux, they make more money from Linux than they do Windows. Let that sink in.

 

[1_rick]

No complaints about the teeny tiny disappearing scrollbars?

Pull up a chair, son. [20,000-word rant deleted]

 

[GotNoRice]

And since their cloud primarily runs on Linux, they make more money from Linux than they do Windows. Let that sink in.

That's like saying Intel's GPU market share is more than Nvidia and AMD Combined - which is actually true. Apples to Oranges comparisons are always fun.

They are not MS primary customers or money makers. I still stand by what i said. Some companies alone are the size of all of those tiny mom and pop shops combined and spend millions to 10's of millions more with MS.

Small Businesses account for nearly 50% of GDP, so to say that there is any one company that is the size of "all of those tiny mom and pop shops combined" is not even in the same ballpark as reality.

And the shift to work-from-home during Covid means more people than ever are using their own personal computers for business work - even corporate employees in many cases.

 

[Wat]

No complaints about the teeny tiny disappearing scrollbars?

No, that one doesn't cause me grief.

 

[MrGuvernment]

And those work from home users are using company resources such as M365 licenses and vpn and remote deskstop sessions to get work done also. I know, I work for one of the largest MSP's in Canada and Microsoft's top partner 2 years in a row...

 

[cpufrost]

Scrollbars? What's that? With wheels on mice and precision trackpads (err touch pads in dozer land! :-P) and two fingers, who needs 'em? ;-)

 

[Lakados]

Windows would not die if it went to Linux, you can bet every vendor and software company would port to linux overnight to keep support for windows. Why? Because windows would still be the dominant OS in the business world as integration with all of the tools company use would still be easy to manage. Toss that with almost every company in the world that matters going M365..

MS is not going anywhere.

MS just got valued at $2T, after their recent set of financials. MS is doing fine doing their own thing, honestly I think MS can implement many of the features that makes Linux “more secure” before Linux can find a way to be more user friendly on the desktop.

Linux is a server OS, and a great one but for desktop I’d rather try to make due with windows server than most Linux distro’s at this stage.

 

[vegeta535]

MS just got valued at $2T, after their recent set of financials. MS is doing fine doing their own thing, honestly I think MS can implement many of the features that makes Linux “more secure” before Linux can find a way to be more user friendly on the desktop.

Linux is a server OS, and a great one but for desktop I’d rather try to make due with windows server than most Linux distro’ sat this stage.

Who would think a multi-trillion dollar company would knows better then a forum full of angry nerds?

 

[equinox654]

I wish that we could get all of the various linux shells ported to windows. I hate all the modern flat ui designs and Ill hate the windows 11 ui even more.
What I hate even more than that is settings getting moved to obscure places or burried.

Thinking about picking up a cheap video card and setting up a vm with passthrough to flip back and forth between linux and windows.

 

[Axman]

And since their cloud primarily runs on Linux

Linux is for servers; the only thing working to make it a desktop/single-user experience is Mint. Even for Ubuntu, that's an afterthought. Pop counts, but is an extension of the hardware.

As God-awful as Windows and the Start Menu have been since their heights with Vista, Windows is still the best user-focused operating system.

And that's regardless of the type of user. Power users, casuals, tech illiterates, gamers ... it's always Windows.

Nobody dual-boots Linux.*

*Yes I know some people dual-boot Linuxes, but they're absolute assholes that cannot contribute to any of this. Mention your all-Linux dual-booting at your own risk of irrelevance.

 

[Lakados]

Nobody dual-boots Linux.*

*Yes I know some people dual-boot Linuxes, but they're absolute assholes that cannot contribute to any of this. Mention your all-Linux dual-booting at your own risk of irrelevance.

I hate that I like this but the stereotype holds…..

 

[Lakados]

Linux is for servers; the only thing working to make it a desktop/single-user experience is Mint. Even for Ubuntu, that's an afterthought. Pop counts, but is an extension of the hardware.

Thinking about this Raspbian is about the best "Desktop" variant of Linux I have used in a pretty long while.

 

[ManofGod]

I wish that we could get all of the various linux shells ported to windows. I hate all the modern flat ui designs and Ill hate the windows 11 ui even more.
What I hate even more than that is settings getting moved to obscure places or burried.

Thinking about picking up a cheap video card and setting up a vm with passthrough to flip back and forth between linux and windows.

Well, if you take the time to learn VFIO and get it working, it is worth it. However, make sure you do it on a clean install of whatever Linux OS is your thing because it is going to take to to learn and mistakes will be made.

 

[Axman]

Thinking about this Raspbian is about the best "Desktop" variant of Linux I have used in a pretty long while.

It's like Pop, an extension of the hardware. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's where their money comes from.

Windows money comes from individual users. While I'm sure Microsoft's biggest licensing profits come from enterprise, the only reason enterprise uses Windows is because its users are already trained to use Windows. Microsoft knows that if they make Windows essentially free, or close to it, for desktop, people will continue to use it, and train on their own time.

Then Microsoft can sell it to businesses. But the user experience comes first. And they have a bunch of different platforms to test stuff on, between versions and consoles and all the weird niche projects they're always up to.

It's a wacky business model. It'd be like piping gasoline into people's kitchens to sell cars. Doesn't make any sense, but it earns a shitload of money.

The only thing I can think of for why Microsoft is considering rounded corners, center Start Menus, and other inefficient UI designs is that Microsoft -- probably correctly -- expect super-high resolution displays to be the next thing in desktops.

I just hope they have single-pixel square-bordered windows as an option for troglodytes like me who think 1080p is fine for laptops and such.