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

Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

philipbohun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 203 posts

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#41

Post by mschuster91 »

bunderbunder wrote: post #34

I don’t think things are quite so dire for Windows. People (including me) have been predicting the end of Windows due to losing mindshare with builders since the turn of the century, and it still hasn’t happened. The harsh truth is that most consumers pick Windows because PCs cost less than Macs. Businesses pick them for employee computers for the same reason. And Windows Server more or less became a moot point when…

> The harsh truth is that most consumers pick Windows because PCs cost less than Macs.

Ever since the MacBook Neo, that's no longer the case. And frankly... Apple has now demonstrated that an old iPhone SoC is enough to drive macOS. I think that it should be feasible for them to run macOS on iDevices as a hypervisor-style guest, yielding you the full macOS experience when plugged into an USB-C dock.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#42

Post by okanat »

pdntspa wrote: post #32
haunter wrote: post #5

LTSC, surprised the post doesn't mention that. No forced feature updates, no unnecessary preinstalled apps. I'm using them for years without any problems. There was only one extreme edge case where an app didn't work because it was hard coded to only work on Windows 10 Pro and couldn't do anything with the LTSC version. Yes you can't get it legally as a regular end user but MSFT also doesn't care about piracy either.…

Yeah but who gets that legally

Businesses with volume licensing agreements and Kiosk manufacturers can get the licenses pretty easy. Then can even negotiate a lower cost per device.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#43

Post by refulgentis »

pbohun wrote: post #12
chris_money202 wrote: post #6

OP says Windows needs builders to make applications and that is what Windows Lite would enable (or expand) but then says Windows Lite shouldn't include .NET one of the primary frameworks to build applications on Windows.

Honestly, I think starting from win32 again would be a breath of fresh air. Also, note that I described it as an option, no one would be forced on Windows Lite. It was my own speculation that it would become popular.

The blog post itself is wishcasting, but it’s missing the point completely once we strip .NET. .NET has been around since I was at least 11, I’m 38 now. I don’t know why it’d be considered optional, the backwards compatibility story disappears without it. Once we want to start fresh from Win32 it’s just not-Windows programmer who vaguely understands Win32 is still available, rather than anything helping anyone.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#44

Post by cdmckay »

> Windows Lite is a stripped down version of Windows. No telemetry, no spying, no ads, no AI, no .NET, nothing. Windows Lite is just win32 with a lightweight shell and graphics drivers.

So, basically Linux with Wine/Proton?

Isn’t this basically what SteamOS does?

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#45

Post by wsgeek »

Not trying to offend anyone at all but this is a prescription for the symptom not the disease. M$FT marketing would loooove to create WindowsLite. In fact the did it already back in the day -- and the public fell for it. WindowsME/SE/CE anyone? What utter pieces of garbage. The real problem is that they still have a moat (the Microsoft tax) on computer manufacturers which keeps their bloatware everywhere. It's one of the more brilliant things Gates pulled off and it's what allowed Ballmer's incompetence to go (almost) unnoticed for years. The other moat which the author correctly points out is inertia. All of the Microsoft faithful that don't want to learn something new (and I don't blame them -- that's a big letting go and reinvestment). And Apple could very well fall into the same hide-behind-the-moat behavior. It's what MBAs and beancounters gets you -- something Jobs was able to mostly avoid. But if we're being open-eyed about this, let's not put them on too high of a pedestal. I'm not at all saying I know where things are going but I do think it involves a Unix philosophy at the core. I think WSL bought Microsoft valuable time but it's embarrassingly obvious that Win32 has just turned to crap and bloat. The Linux/BSD APIs have their warts too but I'll take those warts any day.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#46

Post by nehal3m »

bunderbunder wrote: post #34

I don’t think things are quite so dire for Windows. People (including me) have been predicting the end of Windows due to losing mindshare with builders since the turn of the century, and it still hasn’t happened. The harsh truth is that most consumers pick Windows because PCs cost less than Macs. Businesses pick them for employee computers for the same reason. And Windows Server more or less became a moot point when…

> The harsh truth is that most consumers pick Windows because PCs cost less than Macs. Businesses pick them for employee computers for the same reason.

As a Microsoft sysadmin with a stable of homelab machines of all types and brands (and favorites that are definitely not Microsoft), enterprise mostly buys Microsoft because of the built in endpoint and end user management stacks.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#47

Post by martin_a »

haunter wrote: post #5

LTSC, surprised the post doesn't mention that. No forced feature updates, no unnecessary preinstalled apps. I'm using them for years without any problems. There was only one extreme edge case where an app didn't work because it was hard coded to only work on Windows 10 Pro and couldn't do anything with the LTSC version. Yes you can't get it legally as a regular end user but MSFT also doesn't care about piracy either.…

Do these versions get regular updates or are they expected to run on air-gapped machines so nobody really has to take care of them?

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#48

Post by giancarlostoro »

I just bought a new computer because my old one was showing its age. I usualy go right into using Linux, but this time around I decided to let Windows be for a month or two. It took me anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour to setup Windows with a brand new email (I'm not giving them my old one). Several hours if I count for all the settings I had to hunt down and disable, all the BS I had to remove by hand (I'm not interested in automating this, I don't want instability in my OS that often comes from such scripts). I installed every update, and still yet, last night I still had updates from Microsoft I needed to install.

I can install EndeavourOS in under 15 minutes, no annoying wizard of cruft, no online account needed, all updates out of the box (it updates it all during install). Fullly encrypted disk install - on windows you need pro iirc, I have direct access to Steam, Nvidia, Discord, etc in a simple "yay discord steam" command (Nvidia comes with the USB).

I am not forced to update, I have a friend who didnt update his arch box for like 3 years, upgraded it a week back or so ago and it all worked.

Windows needs to fire all the marketing people ruining the OS, fire whoever shoved JavaScript into places it didn't belong (unless they actually build a real JS runtime / UI for Windows not this React BS), and make the OS better. Windows 10 started okay but went downhill fast. Windows 11 is just Windows 10s worst parts with a new name.

I'm already set on wiping Windows eventually, but I wanted a fresh take on why I always go back to Linux since I had not used 11 yet. It's just abysmal.

I would rather pay Microsoft $99.99 flat for their own rendition of Wine with no telemetry, just a working Win32 environment I can run on any Linux distro, and it runs anything Windows designed fully natively in discrete sandboxing if I want it to. Till then Proton is free, and runs all my games.

Edit:

Also Windows does this really obnoxious thing now where they force all your critical folders into OneDrive out of the box. You have to go out of your way or anything you save a document or image it goes straight into OneDrive. That one pissed me off a ton.

On my Surface Book 2 every time I restart it for updates, I'm forced into a full screen ad for subscribing to Office, mind you, I had Office subscription for like 2 years, which I've since cancelled, and they still tried to force that ad on me.

Microsoft Windows is an ad infested OS, let me know when Microsoft starts selling an OS without the ads, till then I'll always find myself back on Linux.

Oh and I forgot to note, the guy who was checking me out at BestBuy, had a Microsoft shirt, so he asks if I wanted Office, I responded "nah I usually just install Linux" that was the end of any convo he hoped to pitch my way.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#49

Post by maxrmk »

chris_money202 wrote: post #6

OP says Windows needs builders to make applications and that is what Windows Lite would enable (or expand) but then says Windows Lite shouldn't include .NET one of the primary frameworks to build applications on Windows.

Right! Everything from word to the calculator app uses .NET these days. Even many games!

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#50

Post by jimbokun »

bunderbunder wrote: post #34

I don’t think things are quite so dire for Windows. People (including me) have been predicting the end of Windows due to losing mindshare with builders since the turn of the century, and it still hasn’t happened. The harsh truth is that most consumers pick Windows because PCs cost less than Macs. Businesses pick them for employee computers for the same reason. And Windows Server more or less became a moot point when…

Consumers and businesses pick Windows because it’s difficult to buy a PC that doesn’t have Windows installed. At least in part.

The other important factor is that the share of PCs in general is a fraction of Android and iOS devices.

Post reply on HN