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

MrCaffeineX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 22, 2011
Messages
1,587
But at least the new McAfee stuff is way lighter than the old stuff. It forced many of the AV providers to seriously up their game because the agreements basically cut them off completely, a number of them actually sued the OEM's and Microsoft over those requirements because they felt unfairly targeted. Then when Microsoft stepped up their Windows Defender software they got sued even more mostly from Norton who felt they could no longer compete at all, which really I mean good riddance... But I agree a clean install is step 1, followed by licensing it off of Home and onto anything else because sweet Jesus... I can only handle so many variants of Candy Crush.
I recently acquired some new Dell and Lenovo laptops for the office. They are now shipping with Bitlocker enabled by default; however, the drive is unencrypted. It is a weird half-step between forcing security and not caring about security.

They all arrived with McAfee preloaded and while it may be an improvement over previous versions, I didn't see it. I uninstalled it and moved on with my day. After the first few units, I gave up trying to configure them from their out-of-the-box state and ended up going the clean install route.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
4,012
Browsers being hot in 2002? As far as I remember you either used Internet Explorer or you didn't use the internet. It wasn't until FireFox was created where we got features like a pop-up blocker and addons, which in my opinion remade the internet. I don't get the obsessions with Chrome as Chrome not only didn't do anything unique but almost tried to remove Ad Blocker. Also the G3 and G4 processors were nothing compared to the Athlon 64's of that era as well. You missed out on something great if you used Mac OSX only in 2002.
Firefox was available in rough form in September 2002 as Phoenix, and I forgot that Mac users had Camino (which I still have a copy of!) based on Mozilla. But yes, Safari was doing things like tabbed browsing and syncing in early 2003, when those were just twinkles in the eyes of most rivals.

Like I said, my first Mac was a laptop, where the G4 was great at the time. There were no mobile Athlon 64 chips at that point, and you know as well as I do that it took a while for AMD to make laptop chips that were both reasonably fast and power efficient. I was getting four-plus hours of battery life from a thin 15-inch laptop at a time when you were lucky to get three from a thick 13-inch system... I'd say I wasn't missing out.


Ask Apple as they use Linux for their servers. What do you think Apple uses for servers? It isn't Mac OSX that's for certain. Microsoft, Apple, everyone uses Linux for their servers. That's like Coca Cola not using their own Dasani water brand for their soft drinks because they know it's too shitty. What does that tell you about Microsoft Windows and Mac OSX compared to Linux when they don't even use these OS's to secure their online server data?
That doesn't mean Linux is more secure, it just means that macOS (it's not OS X, btw, that hasn't been used for years) isn't necessarily well-suited for servers these days. That speaks volumes about Apple's priorities, but security doesn't necessarily play a role.


Metal creates a divide among developers because Apple wants them to learn how to code for their platform and their platform only. So developers have a few choices in that they also learn to code Metal as well as Vulkan and DX12, or they could only learn code on Metal only because nobody has time for that. Or developers could just avoid metal by using a wrapper like MoltenVK which does slightly decrease performance. It makes no sense to have Metal when Vulkan is open and Apple could donate code to make the changes needed that they want, like everyone else does.

The creation of Metal is just a method to piss off developers because end users aren't exactly dealing with the API situation directly. Apple is trying to pull a Sony PS3 by making something complicated in hopes that developers will only develop for your platform because nobody has the resources to learn everything like Vulkan and DX12. Apple thinks they have enough market share that developers will have to learn Metal and hopefully learn no other API. It's another dick move by Apple that doesn't help the API situation what so ever, and just hurts end users in that they either don't get software or will get inferior software.
I can see plenty of people coding only for Metal, especially if they intend to develop for iPhone and iPad, but I will agree that a computer-only developer is unlikely to exclusively learn Apple's framework.

I don't think Apple is trying to make things unnecessarily complicated; most likely, it just feels that it can move faster and more effectively than contributors to Vulkan (whether that's true or not is another story). Metal and Swift are relatively easy to support, as I understand. The golden rule for Apple is that it only embraces industry standards when they're both open and move quickly enough to satisfy the company's goals. I don't doubt that Apple likes the idea of developers choosing to only write code for its platforms, but history suggests this is more about Apple doing what it thinks will deliver the best experience... even if many would rather that it also support Vulkan and run more games natively.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,551
Firefox was available in rough form in September 2002 as Phoenix, and I forgot that Mac users had Camino (which I still have a copy of!) based on Mozilla. But yes, Safari was doing things like tabbed browsing and syncing in early 2003, when those were just twinkles in the eyes of most rivals.
Assuming that's correct, that isn't enough reason to go out and buy a Mac in 2002. Chances are you had Internet Explorer on Mac as well because most websites back then needed IE to work correctly because websites sucked back then. So if you needed IE to use certain websites then what's the point of using Safari?
Like I said, my first Mac was a laptop, where the G4 was great at the time. There were no mobile Athlon 64 chips at that point, and you know as well as I do that it took a while for AMD to make laptop chips that were both reasonably fast and power efficient. I was getting four-plus hours of battery life from a thin 15-inch laptop at a time when you were lucky to get three from a thick 13-inch system... I'd say I wasn't missing out.
I have a PowerBook G4 and that thing is slow. It has a Radeon 9600 while my ProStar Laptop from that same era has a Pentium 4 with a Radeon 7500. Guess which one today can render YouTube videos on a webpage? Both run Linux but of course I have to jump through many hoops to get it working even somewhat correctly on the G4. The Pentium 4 at 1.8Ghz isn't exactly the same as an Athlon 64 either, and the GPU on the G4 has to run in limp PCI mode because AGP is not properly implanted on Linux for Apple. While I could install Windows 7 and get away with it on the ProStar, I can't force a newer version of Mac OSX because Apple dumped PowerPC in favor of X86.
That doesn't mean Linux is more secure, it just means that macOS (it's not OS X, btw, that hasn't been used for years) isn't necessarily well-suited for servers these days. That speaks volumes about Apple's priorities, but security doesn't necessarily play a role.
Yes it does and stop fanboying for Apple already. They don't use MacOS for servers because it's too shit and insecure. To be fair neither does Microsoft, but that doesn't give Apple any gold stars.
I can see plenty of people coding only for Metal, especially if they intend to develop for iPhone and iPad, but I will agree that a computer-only developer is unlikely to exclusively learn Apple's framework.
The way it works right now is that most developers code for DX12 unfortunately because most developers don't expect to port for Linux or Mac OSX. While Vulkan is open for anyone to adopt and is on Windows, Linux, and Android, the fact that MacOS doesn't haven't Vulkan makes it hard to learn to code for Vulkan and Metal. Considering Xbox uses the same API, it gives very little reason to go outside of DX12.
I don't think Apple is trying to make things unnecessarily complicated; most likely, it just feels that it can move faster and more effectively than contributors to Vulkan (whether that's true or not is another story). Metal and Swift are relatively easy to support, as I understand. The golden rule for Apple is that it only embraces industry standards when they're both open and move quickly enough to satisfy the company's goals. I don't doubt that Apple likes the idea of developers choosing to only write code for its platforms, but history suggests this is more about Apple doing what it thinks will deliver the best experience... even if many would rather that it also support Vulkan and run more games natively.
This isn't the first time anyone has done this in the industry and failed, and so far Apple is certainly repeating that mistake. There's nothing on Metal that Vulkan doesn't already have. Apple wants exclusivity in software and they aren't getting it, and is actually making things worse for them since most aren't going to port their apps due to Metal. I've seen some developers complain about the Metal API for this reason. It's not like Apple couldn't support both Vulkan and Metal as the same time and they have the resources to do it but Apple doesn't want to for exclusivity reasons. Apple is going to learn a very expensive lesson that Sony did during the PS3 and that's not to make developers lives difficult. You aren't going to get software when developers have to do more unnecessary work to port for your platform. Sega learned this shit with the Sega Saturn which is why the Dreamcast was amazing to develop on.
As much as I don't really like Windows anymore, Microsoft does do developers a solid and they provide tools and APIs mostly for free, and allow things like cross-compiling (for example exporting a Win32 app from Linux).
This is also true for Linux as Microsoft is surprisingly porting their tools for Linux. While Apple tries to lock in developers by making their lives harder, Microsoft is trying to extend, embrace, and well you know the rest.
If Apple somehow "won" on the desktop, it would be one of the worst things to happen. Though, at least they do respect privacy and (AFAIK) aren't putting key-loggers in their OS or other BS Microsoft seems to like.
As far as we know that Apple doesn't.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,925
I recently acquired some new Dell and Lenovo laptops for the office. They are now shipping with Bitlocker enabled by default; however, the drive is unencrypted. It is a weird half-step between forcing security and not caring about security.

They all arrived with McAfee preloaded and while it may be an improvement over previous versions, I didn't see it. I uninstalled it and moved on with my day. After the first few units, I gave up trying to configure them from their out-of-the-box state and ended up going the clean install route.
I can’t speak towards Lenovo but I know I can specify some things with my Dell rep about pre installs for Microsoft. They’ve got a copy of all the software I pre install so the Dell image I get is s basically good to go with no extras, with the exception of the Dell update utilities. Makes mass deployments way nicer.
 

Lakados

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
6,925
Firefox was available in rough form in September 2002 as Phoenix, and I forgot that Mac users had Camino (which I still have a copy of!) based on Mozilla. But yes, Safari was doing things like tabbed browsing and syncing in early 2003, when those were just twinkles in the eyes of most rivals.

Like I said, my first Mac was a laptop, where the G4 was great at the time. There were no mobile Athlon 64 chips at that point, and you know as well as I do that it took a while for AMD to make laptop chips that were both reasonably fast and power efficient. I was getting four-plus hours of battery life from a thin 15-inch laptop at a time when you were lucky to get three from a thick 13-inch system... I'd say I wasn't missing out.



That doesn't mean Linux is more secure, it just means that macOS (it's not OS X, btw, that hasn't been used for years) isn't necessarily well-suited for servers these days. That speaks volumes about Apple's priorities, but security doesn't necessarily play a role.



I can see plenty of people coding only for Metal, especially if they intend to develop for iPhone and iPad, but I will agree that a computer-only developer is unlikely to exclusively learn Apple's framework.

I don't think Apple is trying to make things unnecessarily complicated; most likely, it just feels that it can move faster and more effectively than contributors to Vulkan (whether that's true or not is another story). Metal and Swift are relatively easy to support, as I understand. The golden rule for Apple is that it only embraces industry standards when they're both open and move quickly enough to satisfy the company's goals. I don't doubt that Apple likes the idea of developers choosing to only write code for its platforms, but history suggests this is more about Apple doing what it thinks will deliver the best experience... even if many would rather that it also support Vulkan and run more games natively.
There are lots of thinks like MoltenVK that translate from Vulkan to Metal with very little overhead. Most of the titles that use it have only a 1 or 2 % difference in FPS when running on a similarly spec’d Intel based Mac. But Metal is very well documented and smooth.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
4,012
Assuming that's correct, that isn't enough reason to go out and buy a Mac in 2002. Chances are you had Internet Explorer on Mac as well because most websites back then needed IE to work correctly because websites sucked back then. So if you needed IE to use certain websites then what's the point of using Safari?
It wasn't by itself, but I never said it was.

And many sites weren't dependent on IE to work properly. Maybe if you were chained to a Microsoft workflow, but I certainly wasn't. Safari was a breath of fresh air as a browser that was both quick and focused on real web standards.


I have a PowerBook G4 and that thing is slow. It has a Radeon 9600 while my ProStar Laptop from that same era has a Pentium 4 with a Radeon 7500. Guess which one today can render YouTube videos on a webpage? Both run Linux but of course I have to jump through many hoops to get it working even somewhat correctly on the G4. The Pentium 4 at 1.8Ghz isn't exactly the same as an Athlon 64 either, and the GPU on the G4 has to run in limp PCI mode because AGP is not properly implanted on Linux for Apple. While I could install Windows 7 and get away with it on the ProStar, I can't force a newer version of Mac OSX because Apple dumped PowerPC in favor of X86.
What are you trying to argue, that I should have bought a laptop based on how it might run operating systems and web video 19 years in the future? I'm sorry, but my PowerBook was both fast for 2002-era tasks and lasted a long time on battery.


Yes it does and stop fanboying for Apple already. They don't use MacOS for servers because it's too shit and insecure. To be fair neither does Microsoft, but that doesn't give Apple any gold stars.
But... how is it more secure? You keep making this "insecure" claim while trying your hardest to avoid supporting that question with real evidence.


This isn't the first time anyone has done this in the industry and failed, and so far Apple is certainly repeating that mistake. There's nothing on Metal that Vulkan doesn't already have. Apple wants exclusivity in software and they aren't getting it, and is actually making things worse for them since most aren't going to port their apps due to Metal. I've seen some developers complain about the Metal API for this reason. It's not like Apple couldn't support both Vulkan and Metal as the same time and they have the resources to do it but Apple doesn't want to for exclusivity reasons. Apple is going to learn a very expensive lesson that Sony did during the PS3 and that's not to make developers lives difficult. You aren't going to get software when developers have to do more unnecessary work to port for your platform. Sega learned this shit with the Sega Saturn which is why the Dreamcast was amazing to develop on.
I'd like to see Vulkan support too, but I also don't think this will be some costly mistake for Apple, either. Metal is easy to develop for, and the support across iPhone and iPad means that some developers can write games and apps that are available across a huge number of devices. Besides, the Mac wasn't known for gaming before Metal surfaced... I don't know that it's losing much, or that it would gain much.
 

TeeJayHoward

Limpness Supreme
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
11,911
OK, it looks like MacOS. Ehh, whatever. What I really wanna know:

How many additional clicks does it now take to perform a task? Every version of Windows since... 7? I think? has utterly failed this metric, with a few exceptions - the live preview of windows and grouping comes to mind.

Oh yeah, and can the user control the OS again? Pretty please? With sugar on top? I'm tired of my machine telling me "No, you can't turn that off." "No, you NEED Candy Crush." "No, you must have Windows Update enabled to install that piece of standalone offline software. "
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
35,434
Browsers being hot in 2002? As far as I remember you either used Internet Explorer or you didn't use the internet. It wasn't until FireFox was created where we got features like a pop-up blocker and addons, which in my opinion remade the internet. I don't get the obsessions with Chrome as Chrome not only didn't do anything unique but almost tried to remove Ad Blocker. Also the G3 and G4 processors were nothing compared to the Athlon 64's of that era as well. You missed out on something great if you used Mac OSX only in 2002.

I never used IE.

I used Mosaic and theb Netscape in the 90's.

I went straight from Netscape to Mozilla to Firefox when it came out.

I tested Chrome when it first launched, thought it was awesomely fast, but not ready for primetime, but I switched to it a year or two later.

Stuck with Chrome until s year or two ago when I switched snack to Firefox.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
7,045
Want to more about what is under the hood in Windows 11? Not the cosmetics. Is this version or will it have a subscription licensing model? How will it handle privacy better or is it worst? How will the OS side of things work with VR and AR headsets. Will it have a U/I VR mode? Since headsets are getting much higher resolution screens, I see more and productivity work ending up being done in VR/AR. Which means a consistent standard interface/api that can be used between programs could make it more efficient and easier to develop for and use. So far all I've seen is fluff and not much else. Would like to see mobile phone being used as an input device, from videos, camera, mic (no need for a web cam when you have a much superior camera/mic in a mobile phone). I hope it does not try to be a mobile friendly compromise, I rather it use mobile devices as integrating tools for the desktop, I should be able to hold up my phone anywhere in the house and it displays on the computer either live or recorded. Tools that can use VR headsets ability to map out 3d spaces which could be used for commercial sales of items like how would this couch/TV/Wallpaper/Floor/. . . look and fit in your place? No meat, just potatoes so far.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,551
What are you trying to argue, that I should have bought a laptop based on how it might run operating systems and web video 19 years in the future? I'm sorry, but my PowerBook was both fast for 2002-era tasks and lasted a long time on battery.
Apple switched to x86 in 2006 so we aren't talking about 19 years, we're talking about 4 years later. Each additional year that goes by that PowerBook G4 got slower and less compatible with software. How long you think the same will happen with the move to ARM?
But... how is it more secure?
You wanna know how Linux is more secure? Simply put, open source is more secure than closed source. We know how long a bug has been around and can be fixed rather quickly. Apple and Microsoft have closed source OS's which means when a bug is discovered then nobody knows for how long it's been around or how to fix it. I'll let Gardiner explain it.

You keep making this "insecure" claim while trying your hardest to avoid supporting that question with real evidence.
How hard would it be for Apple to use Mac OS for their servers? They put so much money into it then why aren't they using it for their servers? If Apple is using Linux then Apple knows Linux > MacOS.
I'd like to see Vulkan support too, but I also don't think this will be some costly mistake for Apple, either.
Any company that tried to push for obscurity in their standards has ultimately failed. Creative EAX... dead. 3DFX Glide... dead. Nvidia's Physx... dead. AMD's Mantle API... dead. Anyone who tries to push for code that's unique to their hardware will eventually fail. It's not a matter of if but when Apple's Metal API will die off. Microsoft ported DX12 on Linux for a reason, because even Direct3D will be replaced eventually.
 

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,790
Mantle was more of a proof of concept, that low-level APIs would unlock performance. I'm not sure they ever thought it would be commercially viable.

In fact, AMD donated Mantle to Khronos, and it became the foundation of what would later become Vulkan. More proof of AMD supporting open standards and their goodwill to the industry.

MS porting DX12 to Linux is more for their advantage. They want to support Linux GUI apps, but in Windows. Meaning they are trying to stop people from switching to Linux (by allowing the tools to run in Windows under WSL).

Also, evidently not for this Windows 11, but I still think MS has a Linux distro cooking, maybe to hedge their bets in the future.
 

vegeta535

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
9,991
Why does it even matter if MS finally does switch to Linux kernel? You people will still complain about something they doing. It will be nothing like other Linux distros. They could make windows for a so called "power" user but they do not care about that market. Like I said we make up single digit percentage of their entire market. You people will never be happy with anything MS does while the common masses be oh it so pretty and love it.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
8,790
I could matter for hardware drivers and software compatibility.

If MS switched to Linux kernel, then hardware vendors would be forced to support Linux, and some software (like Adobe suite) might be ported.

Or it could be worse, if it was more of a locked down proprietary Linux (like Android) but it would depend on what happens.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,717
I could matter for hardware drivers and software compatibility.

If MS switched to Linux kernel, then hardware vendors would be forced to support Linux, and some software (like Adobe suite) might be ported.

Or it could be worse, if it was more of a locked down proprietary Linux (like Android) but it would depend on what happens.

If it becomes a hardware vendors are forced to support Linux sort of thing, in my opinion, it will just die. Either that or it will be a niche product only.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
4,012
Apple switched to x86 in 2006 so we aren't talking about 19 years, we're talking about 4 years later. Each additional year that goes by that PowerBook G4 got slower and less compatible with software. How long you think the same will happen with the move to ARM?
And someone who bought an XP system in 2002 probably found it increasingly inadequate several years on, too. And what's the point of an architecture transition if you're never allowed to... well, transition? I do think companies have a responsibility to support past architectures for a while, but the last major PowerPC OS release was Snow Leopard, in 2009... I think eight years (since SL was still actively supported until Lion) of total support, and four years past the chip transition, is pretty decent given what happened.

As for ARM? I'd expect Apple to repeat history and support x86 for around four years (three major releases + minor updates) after the transition is done. So 2024-2025 before you stop getting major Intel-friendly releases, and the systems will still be usable for a little while after that.


You wanna know how Linux is more secure? Simply put, open source is more secure than closed source. We know how long a bug has been around and can be fixed rather quickly. Apple and Microsoft have closed source OS's which means when a bug is discovered then nobody knows for how long it's been around or how to fix it. I'll let Gardiner explain it.
That's not evidence, that's vague generalization. And it's not even all that true — witness people finding a seven-year-old security flaw in several common Linux distros. Open source can help, but it's not a panacea.


How hard would it be for Apple to use Mac OS for their servers? They put so much money into it then why aren't they using it for their servers? If Apple is using Linux then Apple knows Linux > MacOS.
It was easier when Apple was developing a lot of server-oriented features. At a certain point the company realized it wasn't gaining much of a foothold in the server space (not helped by the lack of server-friendly hardware) and shifted its software focus toward end clients. If a hardware company like Apple isn't going to make money by adding server features, that's not an admission another OS is inherently superior... it's an admission that the company didn't really have a cohesive server hardware strategy.


Any company that tried to push for obscurity in their standards has ultimately failed. Creative EAX... dead. 3DFX Glide... dead. Nvidia's Physx... dead. AMD's Mantle API... dead. Anyone who tries to push for code that's unique to their hardware will eventually fail. It's not a matter of if but when Apple's Metal API will die off. Microsoft ported DX12 on Linux for a reason, because even Direct3D will be replaced eventually.
The past doesn't always predict the present, and those aren't even great examples outside of Mantle (which, as cyber noted, was more of a proof of concept). Creative, 3dfx, NVIDIA and AMD also haven't designed their own computers, and they certainly haven't had a giant ecosystem of computers, phones and tablets with over 1.65 billion active devices. Metal does limit the potential audience, but Apple already has a huge user base that isn't likely to shrink any time soon.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,551
Why does it even matter if MS finally does switch to Linux kernel?
To us, it doesn't matter. To Microsoft it's a cost saving move that allows them to focus on things like the UI and other aspects of the OS instead of the kernel.
You people will still complain about something they doing.
Of course, because unless it's open source I will complain.
It will be nothing like other Linux distros.
It'll be as far from Linux as Android is.
They could make windows for a so called "power" user but they do not care about that market. Like I said we make up single digit percentage of their entire market. You people will never be happy with anything MS does while the common masses be oh it so pretty and love it.
We make up a small percent of the market but we're the people normies go to for help. We're the people that tell others what to buy and what not to buy. Microsoft could do a lot of things to make us happy like give away Windows and release its source code. How many OS's charge a fee and aren't open source? I guarantee you if Microsoft charges a fee for Windows 11 that nobody will buy it. Microsoft had to force people to upgrade to Windows 10 because historically people don't like to upgrade their Windows OS. Even less people liked Windows 10 telemetry data collecting.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,551
And someone who bought an XP system in 2002 probably found it increasingly inadequate several years on, too.
Not through software that's for certain. Windows XP lasted for a hysterically long time before people had to upgrade due to the lack of security updates.
And what's the point of an architecture transition if you're never allowed to... well, transition?
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.
I do think companies have a responsibility to support past architectures for a while, but the last major PowerPC OS release was Snow Leopard, in 2009... I think eight years (since SL was still actively supported until Lion) of total support, and four years past the chip transition, is pretty decent given what happened.
A lot of Core2Duo owners would laugh at eight years.
That's not evidence, that's vague generalization.
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.
And it's not even all that true — witness people finding a seven-year-old security flaw in several common Linux distros. Open source can help, but it's not a panacea.
All code has bugs, but open source makes it easier to find them. Also 15 years is older.
It was easier when Apple was developing a lot of server-oriented features. At a certain point the company realized it wasn't gaining much of a foothold in the server space (not helped by the lack of server-friendly hardware) and shifted its software focus toward end clients. If a hardware company like Apple isn't going to make money by adding server features, that's not an admission another OS is inherently superior... it's an admission that the company didn't really have a cohesive server hardware strategy.
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.
The past doesn't always predict the present,
Yes it does and those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
Creative, 3dfx, NVIDIA and AMD also haven't designed their own computers,
Creative and 3dfx I understand by not Nvidia and AMD? Also what does building a computer have to do with closed standards?
Metal does limit the potential audience, but Apple already has a huge user base that isn't likely to shrink any time soon.
10% in the grand scheme of things isn't huge. Huge compared to individual companies like HP, Dell, and etc but Windows overall is bigger. Android overall is bigger. My belief is that in time the M1 owners will eventually stay away from Apple due to the lack of ported software. Apple will only have themselves to blame for the difficulty they create for developers to port their software to Apple products.
 
Last edited:

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,958
If it becomes a hardware vendors are forced to support Linux sort of thing, in my opinion, it will just die. Either that or it will be a niche product only.
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.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,958
..................... I guarantee you if Microsoft charges a fee for Windows 11 that nobody will buy it. Microsoft had to force people to upgrade to Windows 10 because historically people don't like to upgrade their Windows OS. Even less people liked Windows 10 telemetry data collecting.
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...
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,903
I never used IE.

I used Mosaic and theb Netscape in the 90's.

I went straight from Netscape to Mozilla to Firefox when it came out.

I tested Chrome when it first launched, thought it was awesomely fast, but not ready for primetime, but I switched to it a year or two later.

Stuck with Chrome until s year or two ago when I switched snack to Firefox.
I remember the first time someone gave me a copy of Mosaic on a floppy disc. I had been using Lynx via a terminal emulator dial up to a university T1 for over a year.
I actually said to them why would anyone want this ? He explained it allowed for images in HTML... and I still said Why ?
As crazy as it sounds I didn't install it for a few months.... and even then I kept using Lynx via a terminal emulator for a good year. lol

Funny that people think real geek types ever used IE. I only ever touched IE to test HTML cause unfortunately people did use it and MS never met a standard they where capable of coding properly. (the irony that poor mosaic ended up in MS hands to become IE isn't lost on me)
 
Last edited:

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
This is so dumb. "How do we appease Mac people who hate us? I know, CENTER THE TASKBAR ICONS"... This is the kind of crap that ruins products. Mac people aren't going to buy Windows, I'm never buying a Mac. Golly man, have some pride in your product.
Hopefully this is changeable (and I suspect it will be). That said, i know mac users that switched to 10 between 2015 and and 2017 (and I know windows users that switched to Mac OS.

I'm generally a windows defender, but I don't think I'd want the start menu in the middle, but it's possible that it won't matter to me. The devil's in the details and I know nothing at this point, but I do believe this is real.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,717
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.

Tell that to all those Non X86 NT based "Windows" projects that are now dead. :) Never said Microsoft is going anywhere, just that the Linux Kernel based OS would die, just like all their other "projects".
 

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
21,602
I remember using the first version of IE. It came with the weird little add-on disk for Win95 called Microsoft Plus. My school was giving it out for free if you bought a Win95 disk. It was super quick, but it was missing features that Netscape and the built-in browsers for AOL/Prodigy/etc. had. I don't remember why, but I hated Netscape back then, so I stuck with IE. I think I just liked how it was faster. It wasn't until IE version 3 that it was finally up to par.
 

Wat

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Messages
462
VMS is better than Linux in every way. You tards have just never taken the time to learn it.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
17,894
Tell that to all those Non X86 NT based "Windows" projects that are now dead. :) Never said Microsoft is going anywhere, just that the Linux Kernel based OS would die, just like all their other "projects".
This has to be one of the worst "comparisons" I have ever seen. You're comparing versions of Windows based on non-x86 hardware not being around (because the hardware wasn't successful) to a version of Windows which would be on x86 hardware (and maybe more since Linux supports a lot more than just x86).

If MS drops NT and goes Linux for the kernel it wouldn't fail. The only thing keeping NT Windows alive is the fact that most paid software is compiled for it. As soon as MS announced the swap to the Linux kernel practically every single company developing software for Windows would swap to developing software for the Linux kernel instead. The exact same thing would happen for hardware drivers. This is speaking only of the ones who don't already develop for Linux.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,717
This has to be one of the worst "comparisons" I have ever seen. You're comparing versions of Windows based on non-x86 hardware not being around (because the hardware wasn't successful) to a version of Windows which would be on x86 hardware (and maybe more since Linux supports a lot more than just x86).

If MS drops NT and goes Linux for the kernel it wouldn't fail. The only thing keeping NT Windows alive is the fact that most paid software is compiled for it. As soon as MS announced the swap to the Linux kernel practically every single company developing software for Windows would swap to developing software for the Linux kernel instead. The exact same thing would happen for hardware drivers. This is speaking only of the ones who don't already develop for Linux.

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?
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
14,552
To us, it doesn't matter. To Microsoft it's a cost saving move that allows them to focus on things like the UI and other aspects of the OS instead of the kernel.

Of course, because unless it's open source I will complain.

It'll be as far from Linux as Android is.

We make up a small percent of the market but we're the people normies go to for help. We're the people that tell others what to buy and what not to buy. Microsoft could do a lot of things to make us happy like give away Windows and release its source code. How many OS's charge a fee and aren't open source? I guarantee you if Microsoft charges a fee for Windows 11 that nobody will buy it. Microsoft had to force people to upgrade to Windows 10 because historically people don't like to upgrade their Windows OS. Even less people liked Windows 10 telemetry data collecting.

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.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,551
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.
Companies and individuals are too different things.
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...
IT people don't use Linux as their daily driver. I still use Windows on my main PC and I hate Windows, but I do it because I can't play all my games on Iinux. If I did daily run Linux then I'd use a Virtual Machine on Windows and pass through some hardware to play games. That's not Linux's fault but how things work when one particular thing becomes dominant. It will take time, a lot of time to get software ported and working 100% on Linux. We have time to spare.

Ek2uFYCX0AE5iod.jpg
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,551
If MS drops NT and goes Linux for the kernel it wouldn't fail.
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.

The only thing keeping NT Windows alive is the fact that most paid software is compiled for it. As soon as MS announced the swap to the Linux kernel practically every single company developing software for Windows would swap to developing software for the Linux kernel instead. The exact same thing would happen for hardware drivers. This is speaking only of the ones who don't already develop for Linux.
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.
 
Top