61–70 of 120 posts
One thing that is pretty impressive with Windows 11 however is WSL. I can just run a X program and it pops up as its own Window. So for example, I can run Chrome on Ubuntu on Windows, out of the box. On Windows 10, WSL is good for the command line, but Windows 11 takes it much further.
Why the pain of working with W11, when you can run Ubuntu or, better, any other distro in your machine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't get me wrong, If hating Microslop was an Olympic sport I'd be on the podium every 4 years, but Win 95, XP, and 7 were functional, usable and stable OS's. 8 got a lot of flak for it's horrible UI changes, but under the hood it was actually a big improvement to 7. It's been steadily downhill since 7 though. Integration of spyware got it's foothold in 8 and now that we are at 11, you've got a completely spyware ri…
> If hating Microslop was an Olympic sport I'd be on the podium every 4 years, To be fair, I agree they are overdue for a truly awful release. I mean, there was Windows Me and then 7 years later Windows Vista. Those were truly Gold medal awful podium releases. Even with Windows 11 I don't think we've hit that level in the cycle just yet.
ME was unstable but had charm, it deserved a lot of the dislike because NT was just so good... and they really should not have removed Real-Mode; that would have been the reason to use ME over NT2000...
Vista though?
If you genuinely gave me a patched Vista and said that it was a viable alternative to 11... I would 100% take that 10/10 times.
Vista's problem was that it was heavy and people sold devices that could barely run the basic version as if they were fully compatible.. Widgets were a bit of a misstep too, but I mean, you can ignore them. Oh and the new driver system meant that you needed totally new drivers for everything; and annoyingly the UAC dialog just got in everyones grill: but we still have that!
And anyway after SP2; Vista was a pretty good OS, especially on reasonable hardware for the time.
I would genuinely rather sniff farts all day and use Vista, than be forced into using the consumer version of Windows 11.
My IT department doesn't suck when it comes to trimming down Windows, but it's still not ideal, you can feel the shit constantly trying to break through.
With Windows 10, I started using "O&O ShutUp10"[0], which lets me easily disable (and revert the changes if needed) most of the crap enabled by default. There's no OneDrive, CoPilot, weather, "news", etc, annoying me, which makes my Windows experience bearable. I just have to open the app once after each major update because Microsoft loves to re-enable features.
My upgrade to Windows 11 was smooth. I didn't have the issues reported in the article. But man, it sometimes feels like they forgot to optimized it. Opening/closing the start menu, viewing all apps, isn't that smooth for me. I have a powerful computer, with a fast GPU and one of the more recent AMD CPUs... and at times it's like it's running at 24fps.
I mainly use a Mac, which is better, but after seeing the "Liquid Glass" UI lag on M1 machines, I decided to stay on MacOS Sequoia. Is everyone ignoring performance now?
I don't use Windows a lot, but still have a desktop for gaming. With Windows 10, I started using "O&O ShutUp10"[0], which lets me easily disable (and revert the changes if needed) most of the crap enabled by default. There's no OneDrive, CoPilot, weather, "news", etc, annoying me, which makes my Windows experience bearable. I just have to open the app once after each major update because Microsoft loves to re-enable…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know who runs that blog, but that's a really exaggerated take. Notepad has had nearly identical UX from Windows 1.0 until 10. Sure, there's a search feature that appeared at some point, ditto with the status bar, at some point they made it able to open files larger than 64K, and apparently you can open files from URLs directly? Five or so noticable changes in an extremely lightweight and utilitarian application in…
Tabs and auto-recover are welcome additions (but still cannot compete with the likes of Notepad++).
Can’t wait til this phase is done.
We have crossed into a fascinating time in computing: market power lets incumbents make “whatever”, shove it in a forced update with no going back, and still be valued in the trillions. Can’t wait til this phase is done.
I'm not being factious, but is there any Linux distro with a desktop experience that matches Windows and macos? Like, yes, I know there are many flaws with both. A lot of sound, technical issues with windows and macos. A slew of UX ones as well. But despite W11 carrying around remnants of Windows 98 still, both of those OSes _feel nice_. Multiple desktops work well, nice gestures, simple installers and applications.…
I just switched to Linux because Windows is _really_ bad lately. I recommend Linux Mint. It has the windows feel for sure. I am not exaggerating when I say it works better than Windows. I didn’t customize anything. Just installed it and connected to WiFi. Key things to consider: - installing apps sometimes isn’t as easy as running an exe. But really you get the gist of .deb and .AppImage files really fast. - I don’t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't get me wrong, If hating Microslop was an Olympic sport I'd be on the podium every 4 years, but Win 95, XP, and 7 were functional, usable and stable OS's. 8 got a lot of flak for it's horrible UI changes, but under the hood it was actually a big improvement to 7. It's been steadily downhill since 7 though. Integration of spyware got it's foothold in 8 and now that we are at 11, you've got a completely spyware ri…
Windows 7 was effectively just vista but enough time had passed that the required hardware to run it was easy to get a hold of. The biggest problem with Vista is you had a lot of Windows XP computers running happily on 256 and 512MB of ram. That made updating to Vista REALLY painful to a lot of people. I think people forget about how little resources 95, 98, and XP needed to run. XP was also criticized for being a ho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't get me wrong, If hating Microslop was an Olympic sport I'd be on the podium every 4 years, but Win 95, XP, and 7 were functional, usable and stable OS's. 8 got a lot of flak for it's horrible UI changes, but under the hood it was actually a big improvement to 7. It's been steadily downhill since 7 though. Integration of spyware got it's foothold in 8 and now that we are at 11, you've got a completely spyware ri…
Windows 7 was effectively just vista but enough time had passed that the required hardware to run it was easy to get a hold of. The biggest problem with Vista is you had a lot of Windows XP computers running happily on 256 and 512MB of ram. That made updating to Vista REALLY painful to a lot of people. I think people forget about how little resources 95, 98, and XP needed to run. XP was also criticized for being a ho…
Not really, Windows 7 had a lot of work poured into it, fixing Vista issues. Even first public betas of W7 were more polished than any of Windows 8..11 releases. That includes work on minimal amount of "noise" notifications, driver issues, speed, design etc