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

61–70 of 203 posts

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#61

Post by delta_p_delta_x »

bmurphy1976 wrote: post #24
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #9

> no .NET Not quite sure about this. .NET is a superb platform, easy to write reasonably good code, huge standard library, well-maintained, many languages supporting a wide variety of paradigms (C#, VB, F#, PowerShell, C++). .NET is one of Microsoft's success stories.

It should be installable, just via a package management system. You choose what you need. I think OP hasn't thought this through completely so he's missing this nuance in his post. That said, knowing Microsoft they WOULD release something like this but cripple it by doing something stupid like disallowing the use of virtualization technology, even as an installed package.

> It should be installable, just via a package management system

I disagree. .NET is fundamental to the Windows platform. It's like having a Python runtime installed by default in some Linux distros, which makes sense for that distribution's use-case.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#62

Post by fyrabanks »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #48

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 int…

great post. the only thing that was tying me to Windows at home was gaming. after Proton, that became irrelevant. (maybe it'd be different if I played competitive multiplayer games.)

curious, though--why hasn't your friend updated his Arch distro in 3 years? bleeding edge is one of the benefits vs other distros, IMHO

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#63

Post by alkonaut »

> ”No .net, nothing”

Not sure this is possible, or provides a meaningful ”lightness”. The 4.x CLR is an OS component as expected as Win32. You could have it as a separate download but I don’t really see the point.

I agree with the overall premise of the article though.

I’d like to go a step further. It shouldn’t just be ”light”, it should be power user focused. There are a thousand little annoyances that plague the OS (like defaulting to hiding file name extensions) which every technical-above-average user needs to adjust in every new install.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#65

Post by smilekzs »

cdmckay wrote: post #44

> 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?

Last time I tried, a lot of CAD/CAE packages still won't operate under WINE, at least not out of the box.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#66

Post by nehal3m »

jimbokun wrote: post #51
nehal3m wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which is one reason it was great when I migrated to a Mac at work. Because there is less spyware and administrative software slowing down and making my computer buggy!

Agreed. It’s a mess of confusing configuration spaghetti, my comment was not meant to imply quality (and that’s leaving aside asinine corporate policy). They’re pretty much the only game in town though sadly.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#69

Post by CamperBob2 »

haunter wrote: post #36
nairboon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes you can't get it legally as a regular end user That's why it's not mentioned, it's not a product for "normal users", the audience described in the post.

But that's also kind of the point too: Windows Lite exists but MSFT is "gatkeeping" it to enterprise users only. Probably because they are paying for it.

Not even enterprise customers are allowed to use LTSC. Only hardware OEMs.

It's asinine. They could charge $1000+ for LTSC licenses, but my data and digital sovereignty is apparently worth even more to them.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#70

Post by giancarlostoro »

fyrabanks wrote: post #62
giancarlostoro wrote: post #48

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 int…

great post. the only thing that was tying me to Windows at home was gaming. after Proton, that became irrelevant. (maybe it'd be different if I played competitive multiplayer games.) curious, though--why hasn't your friend updated his Arch distro in 3 years? bleeding edge is one of the benefits vs other distros, IMHO

He's lazy, but also, when the AURs had their little exploits that affected ten thousand+ packages, he was vindicated for not updating all the time. Arch is just insanely stable. I've had no issues with Endeavour which is basically Arch with a better installed and extremely optional tweaks.

The best part is I've been a .NET developer a good chunk of my career, so Microsoft is a company I've always worked with no matter what. If they offered me a Mac at work I would say yes please, since I know I can install .NET on a Mac anyway.

Post reply on HN