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

51–60 of 203 posts

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#51

Post by jimbokun »

nehal3m wrote: post #46
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.

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!

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#52

Post by haunter »

martin_a wrote: post #47
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?

Yes but no feature updates, so for example LTSC 2021 is "stuck" on 21H2 from 2021. But it gets the regular security and bugfix updates, last one was June 9th

See here (Enterprise and IoT Enterprise LTSB/LTSC editions):

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/release-health/rel...

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#53

Post by kypro »

mschuster91 wrote: post #41
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.

Yeah, even before Neo, since M1, I've been urging people to buy a Macbook Air if they could afford to.. Or consider buying second hand if new is out of their price range.

Budget Windows hardware is trash and the OS is so full of bloat that within a couple of years a budget Windows laptop will be barely functional. For a long time now arguably the only reason to go Windows is if you're a gamer or a business user with very specific software requirements.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#54

Post by thewebguyd »

rawgabbit wrote: post #7
Rotundo wrote: post #2

The blog post sums up why users of Windows might want this. However, this is not what Microsoft wants or needs. Microsoft is doing just fine by providing businesses what they need: a platform that can be tightly controlled and is easy to administer for large user counts.

I don't believe businesses "need" Microsoft. Microsoft is entrenched in corporations for a variety of reasons and none of them because Microsoft is technically any good.

It's a little bit of both.

Microsoft's core product is minimizing operational risk, not the software itself. You can piece together your own stack using best of breed options, but you're going to pay double the price or more, and introduce a ton of friction and risk.

Some businesses (everyone outside of the SV tech echo chamber) "need" Microsoft because its risk mitigation, which is the highest technical feature a business can ask for. Backwards compatibility, EntraID is good, and the compliance/purview stack solves nearly all regulatory headaches OOTB.

OTOH yeah there's a bit of legacy entrenchment, both from Microsoft's monopolistic behavior but also because they were the only ones with an "IT In a box" solution for non-tech companies. Having a cohesive identity, security, and device management ecosystem that can scale to hundreds of thousands of endpoints with a few mouse clicks takes a lot of engineering effort that not many others were doing at the time.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#55

Post by jimbokun »

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.

I think they just mean no .NET by default. Not to stop supporting it altogether, just that those who want it will need to download it.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#56

Post by homebrewer »

martin_a wrote: post #47
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?

They receive updates on time. I've been supporting a few LTSC machines for friends and relatives, haven't ever seen them receive any unnecessary junk through Windows Update. Just bug and vulnerability fixes.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#57

Post by chris_money202 »

miah_ wrote: post #13
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.

.NET is still installable as a standalone thing. In fact I probably have several versions installed on my current Windows PC. No reason Windows Lite couldn't also have .NET installed _when you need it_.

I still don't know if I am sold with that. .NET is also a runtime so how do you handle the user story? If your users are also on Windows Lite then they have to manage .NET version or you have to package .NET with whatever you build. If your users are on full Windows, wouldn't it just make sense for you to build in same environment as your Users? Especially since IT would have to manage two separate operating systems if devs went Windows Lite and say Sales using the target app was on Windows.

This whole thing makes sense for indie devs or build VMs but breaks down for Enterprise pretty quick, and Microsoft is much more friendly to Enterprise customers than indie devs.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#58

Post by omoikane »

It's not obvious if this is a wishlist or endorsement for a product that actually exists. The tone makes it sound like a real product, but if I search for "Windows Lite", I get Windows LTSC, or some downloadable Windows-like software offered by a mix of legit and sketchy looking sites. I am not sure if the author meant the latter.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#59

Post by okanat »

mschuster91 wrote: post #41
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.

Macbook Neos are limited by whatever extra A-chips Apple has. They are okay for very simple office tasks. If you need something like Intel Core5 level performance though, PCs are still cheaper than equivalent M-series Apple chips. If they have both style users, it is cheaper to get a bulk discount from Lenovo/Dell/HP than splitting your users into camps. It is easier to administer too.

Re: Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

#60

Post by hoherd »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #22

Microsoft needs to repeat their Edge trick. Migrate Windows to the Linux kernel and get Linux compartibility out of the box. Immense research of running Windows programs on Linux was already done by Wine/Proton teams.

It sounds interesting, and surely there would be some awesome things that would come from it, but on the other hand, MS could use this to take control of linux APIs through their "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy, so it would not be without risk.

Just look at what happened last week with linux distros needing to update their secure boot keys with a new MS signed certificate. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/expiration-secure-boot-signin...

And look at what MS did with their old version of Office for Mac, where they decided not to simply renew a certificate that would keep the software functioning. https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/microsoft-office/yo...

We already have companies like Nvidia and Broadcom shipping binary blobs to support common hardware. Do we really want a corporation like MS getting in on that kind of thing? If MS wrote some really great desktop linux software, it would be hard for the broader linux community to resist being lured into using MS controlled APIs, and handing over part of their control to Linux's most notable rival.

Post reply on HN