Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft's "fix" for Windows 11

sambent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 804 posts

Re: Microsoft's "fix" for Windows 11

#71

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

joe_mamba wrote: post #34
mschild wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find Teams is often simply picked because of cost reasons. A lot of companies are paying for office and teams comes bundled with it. Why pay extra when its included?

Yep, the amount of penny pinching some companies do nowadays is insane. Teams coming "for free" with their Microsoft 365 subscription is net positive for the bean counters.

Chat software is absurdly expensive. I’m not saying teams is good, but being nickel and dimed is a real risk for businesses too.

Re: Microsoft's "fix" for Windows 11

#72

Post by dahcryn »

mschild wrote: post #27
ptero wrote: post #11

Microsoft lost its way much earlier than 4 years ago. It abused users at the time of Netscape wars and forcing Internet Explorer down people's throats. But they hit an infinite gold mine with government adoption and for the last 30 years no amount of bad engineering was able to shake off government use. Windows 11 is bad? Yes, but did you try Microsoft Teams? The only way to force Microsoft into "users matter" engine…

I find Teams is often simply picked because of cost reasons. A lot of companies are paying for office and teams comes bundled with it. Why pay extra when its included?

yeah I don't understand how this isn't blatant market abuse through their monopoly position

Regulators should be all over it. EU has tried, but unsuccesfully, since it was lawyers who came up with the mitigation.

Re: Microsoft's "fix" for Windows 11

#73

Post by arowthway »

stndef wrote: post #18
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beating is a normal English idiom. While I do sympathize with anyone suffering from abuse, I highly doubt anyone is actually suffering from use of the word.

I'm willing to be wrong, but it's specifically mentioned as an analogy for abuse in the article itself. Not trying to turn everything "woke", but phrasing of scenarios around this just takes away from the severity of what actual abuse is.

How does it take away from the severity of actual abuse? By not mentioning it when it's not relevant to the analogy?

Re: Microsoft's "fix" for Windows 11

#75

Post by c0l0 »

Thanks, but no thanks. The only winning move, long-term, is to excise everything this wretched company makes from your life as vigorously as possible. It's been true 20 years ago, and it's even more true today.

Re: Microsoft's "fix" for Windows 11

#76

Post by eknkc »

conceptme wrote: post #10
no_shadowban_3 wrote: post #2

These flowers smell like shit. If you don't use Linux or MacOS yet, why?

Games

I have a desktop computer that I use for gaming so it had windows forever. Lately it started running laggy. Occasional frame drops and stuff. Reinstall, bios update etc nothing helped.

For debugging I installed Bazzite (Linux gaming distro) assuming compatibility would be shit but I can at least test native linux builds of some games to see if there is a hardware issue. The thing runs perfectly. I've been playing propert windows games on Proton with higher / more consistent FPS. It is kind of funny at this point. Granted I do not play any competitive / multiplayer games.

I guess Valve did a great job on the Steam Deck sw.

Re: Microsoft's "fix" for Windows 11

#77

Post by skc »

no_shadowban_3 wrote: post #2

These flowers smell like shit. If you don't use Linux or MacOS yet, why?

Because Windows works just fine for me.

I'm a dev, I don't game. No issues.

Why people find this hard to believe is kind of puzzling to be honest. As if everyone's experience simply HAS to match your own.

Re: Microsoft's "fix" for Windows 11

#78

Post by hu3 »

alex_duf wrote: post #65
hu3 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

macOS sucks! you need a ton of third party tools and customizations to make it sane for basic things like window management. It's no better than Windows with regards of ammount of tweaking needed for power users. And it scans every executable and command run and sends a hash to motherbase. I don't know how people put up with this. There's probably some dangerous way to disable that like, let me guess, disabling SIP..…

I've installed linux (debian LTS with XFCE) on my mom's computer and she recently called me to thank me. She says her computer is much quieter now (meaning fewer notifications). She only needs a web browser and a text editor. So you're right, it's great for power users, it's also great for other users.

I fucking love XFCE! And have more than a decade of mileage with it.

Re: Microsoft's "fix" for Windows 11

#79

Post by smackeyacky »

throwa356262 wrote: post #46
ptero wrote: post #11

Microsoft lost its way much earlier than 4 years ago. It abused users at the time of Netscape wars and forcing Internet Explorer down people's throats. But they hit an infinite gold mine with government adoption and for the last 30 years no amount of bad engineering was able to shake off government use. Windows 11 is bad? Yes, but did you try Microsoft Teams? The only way to force Microsoft into "users matter" engine…

Am I the only one who prefers Teams to the Slack and Zoom? The ability to write in the meeting chat before and after a meeting for example. That is some serious quality of life function that all others are lacking.

No but it’s hard to get excited about two different flavours of shit sandwich. Teams is terrible piece of software no doubt but slack is worse, marginally

Re: Microsoft's "fix" for Windows 11

#80

Post by dahcryn »

9dev wrote: post #37
mschild wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find Teams is often simply picked because of cost reasons. A lot of companies are paying for office and teams comes bundled with it. Why pay extra when its included?

That was the reason we ditched Slack. I hate Teams with a passion, but we're not going to pay 6k per year for a chat app if we get Teams for free. There's just no way to defend that decision.

6k would be a no-brainer.

In our office, we'd definitely need the enterprise version for compliance reasons, not because of the features. That's about 14/user/month.

At a workforce of roughly 2500, that's a 4million+ yearly cost for something that is comparable to something you can get without that pricetag. It's no competition at all at that point. Think about it, would you be willing to ask your boss to pay 4 million so you can have a different chat app? No matter how much more ergonomic and friendly and intuitive it is.

Post reply on HN