Windows 11 is dying....

[soldar]

The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand. I have used Mint (with the default Cinnamon desktop) for about ten years now and have yet to see any splinters on my desktop. The existence of other distros of Linux and other desktops affects me just as much as the existence of Windows or Apple: exactly zero.

I do not understand the complaint that there are too many distros of Linux. Well, I only use one and I don't care how many others exist. They don't affect me in the least.  Just like the existence of Windows or Apple or Android or anything else.

Logically you are right of course, but you are missing the point these people make: they think that with fewer "splintering" and fewer distros the same amount of resources would be put into doing less of the repeated work, so that a better quality software would be delivered instead. Whether this is true at all is another question; I don't think it is. In world of free / open source software, many people/companies do whatever they want to do exactly because they can do what they want; they would not be doing something else instead just because someone directed them to. Plus, competition drives innovation, too. Duplicated work, while inefficient, increases security against single points of failure.

Oh, OK, thanks, I see the point.

[SteveThackery]

Yes. Really it seemed obvious to most people inside the corporation and also to most others that the MS deal is not going to end up working, like chances of success are exactly 0%. Now doing anything else could have been chances close to 0%, but still non-zero. Selling out to MS was obviously looking like total surrender, in a tight situation where fighting with own, sensible product line still was a remote possibility. In a desperate situation, doing something brave and unique could have worked, but nah, the whole demise of Nokia was problem of poor management - and bloated middle management - and when a large ship is going down because it's too large, it's very hard to save. Selling out to MS probably saved personal careers of many, and just like "no one got fired by buying IBM", no one also got fired for selling out to Microsoft, so then we can just look at the obvious result and say "oh we did our best".

My memory of this is very different. At that time Microsoft was desperately trying push Windows Phone 7, and Nokia were one of the very few mobile phone manufacturers to have adopted it, turning out great products like the 1520 - probably my favourite mobile phone of all time.

Microsoft thought that buying a phone manufacturer would provide them with the same benefits Apple had with their relatively new iPhone: complete control over the software, the hardware, the marketing. It was a very reasonable strategy - they did not want the adoption of WP7 to be entirely at the whim of the phone manufacturers. Google did the same thing for Android: they started selling Google-branded phones as "exemplars" of what an Android phone could be. Seeding the market, if you like. Luckily for them they were pushing at an already open door, unlike Microsoft with WP7.

In more recent times Microsoft became frustrated with the fairly boring, fairly crappy Windows laptops that were being sold at that time. Chromebooks looked like they could make inroads into the mobile computing market, which was making them nervous. The market lacked a Windows laptop fit to be a competitor to the Apple range, so Microsoft "did a Google" and developed a range of top flight, premium portable computers to demonstrate that you didn't need to buy Apple if you wanted a top quality product.

It worked: the Surface range set a new standard for top flight, desirable Windows computers and - in my opinion - definitely raised the perceived value and status of Windows machines for portable computing.

So it worked with Surface: taking control of the hardware, software and marketing is a powerful tool for success - something Apple have enjoyed since the beginning. Unfortunately it didn't work with Nokia and Windows Phone 7.

I don't know what the management culture was like in Nokia at that time, but their phone products were right up there with the best. I also don't really understand why Microsoft failed with Nokia but succeeded with Surface.

[themadhippy]

The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand.

Indeed,perhaps they need some sandpaper.The desktop im using now looks very similar the the desktop i was using when i first jumped ship 20ish year ago,yes the buggers tried to change things but a  magic incantation  put it back to how i wanted things,can you say the same for  windows 11 ?

[SteveThackery]

The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand.

Indeed,perhaps they need some sandpaper.The desktop im using now looks very similar the the desktop i was using when i first jumped ship 20ish year ago,yes the buggers tried to change things but a  magic incantation  put it back to how i wanted things,can you say the same for  windows 11 ?

"How I want things" changes over time. I'm quite proud to be open to change, provided it feels like change for the better. Sometimes it does, sometimes not.  I've never resisted change for 20 years, though!

Even if the benefit seems questionable, I'll sometimes embrace it just to avoid boredom.

[Analog Kid]

but for most printed graphics you probably don't care whether a colour on screen is precisely the same

Heh.

When I owned a print shop...

Did you have a process camera?
Here all cameras were practically gone when color scanners appeared.

Not in this shop.
Up to this point I had only worked in shops (including one I set up when I was just a kid in a graphic-designer mentor's basement with a Multi 1250) which shot everything on litho film using a process camera and then burned plates from stripped flats. You know, Rubylith, red spotting ink, amber stripping sheets, all that stuff.

(I'll have to tell you about my camera setup I had in that old shop in a follow-up post. It was too weird to be true ...)

Did you do film printing or straight to plate?

Straight to plate.

The shop I owned was based on a Heidelberg Speedmaster 52-2. Incredible fucking piece of machinery (and also an incredible financial burden, since I was paying for it with a monthly lease).

The workflow was from computer (a Windows machine that I used, and a Mac that was used by a guy who came in and did prepress stuff for me) direct to an AB Dick platemaker that made polyester plates.

99% of the time, when customers came in with a PDF of their piece, I could just open up InDesign, plop their PDF into a blank document and send it to the platemaker. No adjustments needed, including page bleeds or any other imposition choices.

[Analog Kid]

A bit off-topic, I know, but I just wanted to describe my process camera I had when I was just a kid (20s) in my basement print shop with my Multi 1250.

The "press" (actually an offset duplicator) belonged to a graphic designer I ended up working for. It was sitting unused in his basement, not working.
He told me I could use it if I could get it working.
Luckily it came with a service manual. Not an official A-M (Addressograph Multigraph) book but a 3rd party one with complete teardown and rebuild instructions and lots of pictures.
I was able to get the thing running with the help of that book.

So then I needed some way to make plates for it.
This was in Chicago, so we went down to this place on Wabash Ave. ("Printer's Row") that sold used equipment.
There I found an ancient process camera, nice big horizontal jobbie, for $cheap$, so we bought it.
Turned out that this camera was once part of the original Xerox process.
It didn't take film; instead, the target was a polished metal plate at the back.
At that time, the xerography process consisted of these steps:

• This metal plate was inserted in a device that placed a high-voltage charge on the plate. (Dunno whether positive or negative.)
• The plate was put in a dark slide and inserted in the back of the camera.
• The plate was exposed to the copy material in the camera.
• The plate was taken (in the dark slide) to a thing that covered the plate with toner; the toner stuck to the unexposed (dark) areas of the plate and didn't stick to the exposed (background = white) parts.
• The plate was put into yet another device that imparted the toner to the copy paper, just like modren Xeroxes do: a hot fuser melted the toner into the paper, and voila! there's your copy.

Obviously this wouldn't work for my application; I needed to expose litho film.
So I took that silvery metal plate and drilled a bunch of small holes in a grid pattern.
Built an airtight enclosure onto the back of the plate holder using Masonite.
Attached a vacuum-cleaner hose outlet to the back of this box.
Ran an ancient Hoover to the box with a hose.
Now I could put a piece of film on the plate, turn on the vacuum, load it into the back, expose it, then develop the film.

It worked great.

My "platemaker" was just a wooden contact frame with a piece of glass and some foam rubber to squish the stripped flat onto the plate (I used foil plates) and a quartz lamp to burn it.

I loves ancient technology ...
I found a page that describes all this equipment, which apparently was combined into what Xerox called the "Xerox standard equipment". All the separate steps were done by separate modules within one cabinet.

[themadhippy]

Even if the benefit seems questionable, I'll sometimes embrace it just to avoid boredom.

And when it impacts productivity?i don't want to hover at the left hand side of the screen ,to click an icon on a side panel that pops out , to bring up a window to search for the program i want to run,whoever came up with that idea should be forced to run windows 2.0 ,for life,I'll stick with the "classic" look thanks

[SteveThackery]

Even if the benefit seems questionable, I'll sometimes embrace it just to avoid boredom.

And when it impacts productivity?i don't want to hover at the left hand side of the screen ,to click an icon on a side panel that pops out , to bring up a window to search for the program i want to run,whoever came up with that idea should be forced to run windows 2.0 ,for life,I'll stick with the "classic" look thanks

There speaks someone who hasn't used Windows in 20 years. You've no idea what you are talking about - that is not how Windows works (unless you deliberately frig it, but of course you can frig Linux to make it unusable as well). You might be interested to know that it takes just two clicks to launch any of the 20-odd programs on my Start menu - one for the menu, one for the icon.

This is what seems so sad to me: the most resolutely anti-Windows pundits here have clearly not used it for so long their opinions are completely outdated. And yet they still keep hating. It's as if their self-esteem depends on it, which is why they defend it to the last.

Fucking weird, if you ask me.

[TimFox]

A bit off-topic, I know, but I just wanted to describe my process camera I had when I was just a kid (20s) in my basement print shop with my Multi 1250.

The "press" (actually an offset duplicator) belonged to a graphic designer I ended up working for. It was sitting unused in his basement, not working.
He told me I could use it if I could get it working.
Luckily it came with a service manual. Not an official A-M (Addressograph Multigraph) book but a 3rd party one with complete teardown and rebuild instructions and lots of pictures.
I was able to get the thing running with the help of that book.

So then I needed some way to make plates for it.
This was in Chicago, so we went down to this place on Wabash Ave. ("Printer's Row") that sold used equipment.
There I found an ancient process camera, nice big horizontal jobbie, for $cheap$, so we bought it.
Turned out that this camera was once part of the original Xerox process.
It didn't take film; instead, the target was a polished metal plate at the back.
At that time, the xerography process consisted of these steps:

• This metal plate was inserted in a device that placed a high-voltage charge on the plate. (Dunno whether positive or negative.)
• The plate was put in a dark slide and inserted in the back of the camera.
• The plate was exposed to the copy material in the camera.
• The plate was taken (in the dark slide) to a thing that covered the plate with toner; the toner stuck to the unexposed (dark) areas of the plate and didn't stick to the exposed (background = white) parts.
• The plate was put into yet another device that imparted the toner to the copy paper, just like modren Xeroxes do: a hot fuser melted the toner into the paper, and voila! there's your copy.

Obviously this wouldn't work for my application; I needed to expose litho film.
So I took that silvery metal plate and drilled a bunch of small holes in a grid pattern.
Built an airtight enclosure onto the back of the plate holder using Masonite.
Attached a vacuum-cleaner hose outlet to the back of this box.
Ran an ancient Hoover to the box with a hose.
Now I could put a piece of film on the plate, turn on the vacuum, load it into the back, expose it, then develop the film.

It worked great.

My "platemaker" was just a wooden contact frame with a piece of glass and some foam rubber to squish the stripped flat onto the plate (I used foil plates) and a quartz lamp to burn it.

I loves ancient technology ...

When the printers moved to single-floor buildings in da ‘burbs, Printers’ Row high rises were converted to loft condos.  The main selling point was huge floor loading, suitable for multiple pianos, since heavy presses were housed on upper floors.

[PlainName]

Even if the benefit seems questionable, I'll sometimes embrace it just to avoid boredom.

And when it impacts productivity?i don't want to hover at the left hand side of the screen ,to click an icon on a side panel that pops out , to bring up a window to search for the program i want to run,whoever came up with that idea should be forced to run windows 2.0 ,for life,I'll stick with the "classic" look thanks

Is that what W11 is now? Here on W7 there is the start menu where things not used too often are easily found (assuming one has organised it sensibly). For often used things there are shortcuts (aka icons) on the desktop, sometimes in a folder on the desktop. There's the 'pin to taskbar' feature if you like that (I don't), the search where you can type in (or start to type in) the name of the program (if you can remember it). Plenty of options.

There are start menu replacement utils that provide W7 and earlier start menus on W10, if you really do want the W3 look and feel.

Thing I really hate is a bunch of icons wasting space along the bottom of the screen. Taskbar with actual running apps is fine if they disappear when the app does, otherwise really annoying.

(But, of course, that's just the raw unenhanced Windows. I have some utils that make things even nicer for me.)

[themadhippy]

There speaks someone who hasn't used Windows in 20 years.

Actually i wern't on about windows,i was explaining the reasoning for sticking with the old ways in linux instead of trying something new to relieve the boredom

[SteveThackery]

There speaks someone who hasn't used Windows in 20 years.

Actually i wern't on about windows,i was explaining the reasoning for sticking with the old ways in linux instead of trying something new to relieve the boredom

Hmmm... I don't think so, but whatever.

[Cyclotron]

I think we are close. To be clear about my perspective. I want an OS to do OS stuff and provide a platform that runs the applications I use most efficiently. The friction of getting the applications I need to use is important to me.

If the applications I wish to run are best or easiest on Windows, it seems contrived to get WINE working on Linux and then get my preferred Windows app working on WINE on Linux, vs. just starting the computer and running the application on Windows.

Also, I should be clear. I don't run Windows. I use macOS for my user interface. I use Windows and Linux on other systems. I have at least 40 systems running at any given time, between hardware and VMs on my servers. All of the apps that I want to run as a user are native to macOS and no VM/WINE is required.

The other implications I've seen and addressed are that people believe a myth that Linux is more secure than Windows, and that Linux doesn't change. Both of these are falsehoods as far as I know. In fact, Linux tops the charts in most breached and most vulnerabilities.
And as for changes, the Linux desktop is so splintered that it's amazing anything works across them all. It would be better to say "move to linux where if you can't find a distro that currently does things the way you want, you're not looking."  It's anything but consistent and stable.

Maybe it's just me but I seem to detect a confrontational tone. It's like you are looking for someone to contradict you. As far as I am concerned you can do and think whatever you want and whatever makes you happy and works for you. I'm not here to argue. If you are looking for the Monty Python Argument Clinic I'm afrarid it's not me.

I believe you've read more there than is there. I started with "I think we are close, " which translates to you as "confrontational"? As you had an argument with my take on Infraviolet's post, wouldn't that have been you who came looking for the argument clinic? I can only assure you that I have no interest. I am just participating in the conversation and posting my experience and observations. I do not expect or ask that you agree with me. But to clear things up, I started by saying I thought we were close on takes of Infraviolet's post. Since you had provided yours, I clarified my views. They weren't directed at you. You have to remain in the context to make sense of it. Also, consider that text and writing are rarely very good at portraying emotion or inflection. It may be that you are emotionally attached to Linux and feel that my observations are negative about something you care about.

The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand. I have used Mint (with the default Cinnamon desktop) for about ten years now and have yet to see any splinters on my desktop. The existence of other distros of Linux and other desktops affects me just as much as the existence of Windows or Apple: exactly zero.

My statement isn't directed at you. You have to maintain the context.  Put Infraviolet, mine, yours, and mine again into a notepad if it helps.

I do not understand the complaint that there are too many distros of Linux. Well, I only use one and I don't care how many others exist. They don't affect me in the least.  Just like the existence of Windows or Apple or Android or anything else.

It's not a complaint. It's an experience and observation. I didn't say any of this impacted you at all, did I?
Again, the context of this thread is Windows 11 dying, and the sub-thread we are in is with a self-proclaimed Linux evangelist Infraviolet.  I don't know why you feel I've attacked you. I am not attacking you or Linux. Just stating opinions, facts, and observations from experience. Don't take it personally.

The "it seems contrived to get WINE working on Linux and then get my preferred Windows app working on WINE on Linux" I do not understand. When I installed Linux Mint, I installed WINE and my desired Windows program, and from then on they just work. I click on the icon and it starts. Someone who does not know better would think the program is running natively. It's like installing a driver. You install it it once and then forget it. I really do not understand the complaint.

It isn't my experience that using WINE is as simple as you portray it. As late as last week, it took me over an hour to get a Windows program running in the setup I needed to test. The way I've seen evangelists post, one might think it's a double click, and away you go.

The "Linux doesn't change" seems like a strange thing to say either in the affirmative or the negative. In my experience everything changes. So Linux changes... so what?  I dislike change but I just have to get used to change because I have no other option. The fact that I dislike change is the main reason I am running some Windows programs with Linux because there are other Linux programs which could serve the same purpose.

Again, in context Infraviolet had implied that Windows is always changing as a significant down side to using Windows. So I guess that's "what".

To each his own. I have chosen Linux because I dislike "telemetry" (spying), I dislike Windows' heavy handed update policies, and because Linux requires less resources and can run on older computers which can no longer run Windows. I have more control over my own computer and I like that.

If other people prefer Windows or Apple or other Linux distros or a walk in the park, well, more power to them. They do not affect me in the least.

I'm glad you got that off your chest. Maybe you and Infraviolet share that Linux evangelism? I am not an OS evangelist of any kind. I use all of them to the best of their abilities. I do think that Linux Distros are just as "heavy-handed" as you claim Microsoft is with Windows. There have been so many holy wars in Linux and in the distros that one can't even imagine counting them. Many were started because the distro maintainer decided to make changes.

 I'm not trying to change your mind.

[themadhippy]

for some reason SteveThackery decided to edit his post to  removed from his original post

That's about Windows, isn't it?  Doesn't sound like any Linux distro I've used.

No its not,were you using ubuntu when they first moved away from gnome back in 2011?

[Cyclotron]

The "Linux desktop is so splintered" I do not understand.

Indeed,perhaps they need some sandpaper.The desktop im using now looks very similar the the desktop i was using when i first jumped ship 20ish year ago,yes the buggers tried to change things but a  magic incantation  put it back to how i wanted things,can you say the same for  windows 11 ?

Yes, you can maintain a desktop you want in Windows.  Funny how this thread bounces between the User interface and the OS.

Windows' Explorer interface has had available replacements for a very long time. Total Commander is the one that comes to mind as one of the oldest, like 30 years?
So you could, if you wished, have run Total Commander for the past 30 years and never complained about Windows Explorer.

[SteveThackery]

for some reason SteveThackery decided to edit his post to  removed from his original post

That's about Windows, isn't it?  Doesn't sound like any Linux distro I've used.

No its not,were you using ubuntu when they first moved away from gnome back in 2011?

I edited it because I realised it was just continuing the argument to no benefit. I've never adopted Linux as my workaday OS, even though I can't resist endlessly fiddling about with it, and I'm afraid I don't remember what I was messing with back in 2011.

[tycz]

Indeed,perhaps they need some sandpaper.The desktop im using now looks very similar the the desktop i was using when i first jumped ship 20ish year ago,yes the buggers tried to change things but a  magic incantation  put it back to how i wanted things,can you say the same for  windows 11 ?

Yes, you can maintain a desktop you want in Windows.  Funny how this thread bounces between the User interface and the OS.

Windows' Explorer interface has had available replacements for a very long time. Total Commander is the one that comes to mind as one of the oldest, like 30 years?
So you could, if you wished, have run Total Commander for the past 30 years and never complained about Windows Explorer.

I like to think of the programs that come with Windows as just examples of what a desktop computer can do for people to learn basic concepts from. They are not really supposed to be the best in their class. In fact, Microsoft got in trouble for packaging a (relatively) high quality web browser software with their operating system once.

I replaced all the sub-standard software that comes with Windows long ago. Wouldn't anybody who appreciates good software do the same? There are plenty of alternatives to Notepad, Windows Explorer, Terminal, Paint, Media Player, Outlook, and even the Start Menu. All the important operating system parts of Windows 11 still work as well as they ever did as far as I can tell. Compatibility with old software is still good, Power Shell is good, all the Windows tools like Regedit and Task Manager are still fine. The tracking and forced updates are a problem, but they can be mitigated to some extent. I somehow managed to get Windows update stuck on version 22H2, but security updates still come through, which suits me just fine.

Aesthetically, I find Windows 11 excellent. I think this is important as I've got to look at it for hours every day! This is what prevented me from updating from Windows 7 to 10 (8 was a joke and not even considered). Window 10 user interface looked unfinished, like place holder graphics. I tried 10 on a laptop for a few days but just couldn't get used to how ugly everything looked compared to 7. The title bars of programs didn't change colour or have any shadow so it was impossible to tell which window had keyboard focus. I would lose the find dialog in a text editor on the screen or think the program I was using had locked up when there was just a small modal dialog box was open that I didn't notice because everything looked 'flat'. Windows 11 looks much better, slightly rounding the corners on the windows and buttons makes all the difference. Changing title bars colours and window shadows are also back. It looks like an evolution of Windows 7 now, rather than some awful mistake, and I appreciate the change after looking at the 7 interface for so many years! I do have some software that was made during the Windows 10 era and they look like alien programs amongst rest of my software.

OTOH, when I discovered what one could do with the command line, my productivity got about a 10.000% impulse. Any Linux program, even GUI ones, can be called from the command line, and set to do things automatically the way you want. I know, you think that's a geeky thing. And following your thinking, I guess geeky things are bad things. Wrong.

If you need to apply, say, a sharpen mask and resize some hundreds-thousands pictures, having to do one by one is a very big PITA. One can craft a little script in about 20 lines of shell code that will do it all for you. Just an example. No need to look for any app able to work with batches. Just make an script to send the commands you want to your app. So I'm all for that (and others) type of geeky things. I guess, that's not your case. Fine.

Command line programs are excellent for doing repetitive tasks in an automated way, but I would question how often you need to do this. I have lots of command line tools installed on my computer, but typically don't use any of them day to day. Each one has a different syntax, so I need to read the manual for a while before use every time. I remember once using Image Magick (and perhaps Gostview) to cut the shipping address out of an automatically generated shipping label and insert it into another one of my own design. I got it all to work in the end, but it took several hours of work. If I only wanted to do it just once, could have done it in minutes with the GUI tools I'm already familiar with. If I'm making a document with images normally I would need some diagrams, which I can make with CAD or paint software, some photos which I will crop, adjust gamma, sharpen, etc on a per image basis. Some photos need to be annotated with arrows or text, which I have software for too. Then I can assemble them into my document with a HTML editor or word processor or whatever. I don't see how the process could be improved upon by using the command line.

I did use Linux an my primary operation system about twenty years ago (three years 2005-2007) thinking it was the future and Windows was on the way out. I gave it a good shot, but I had to come back to Windows when I realised that I just wasn't very productive on my computer. The only other guys I knew who used Linux in real life at the time were as some kind of play toy or system admin. At least at the time, the quality of the best GUI productivity programs was very low compared to what was available on Windows. The real problem was there was almost no commercial software available. I think I bought only one commercial Linux program in the entire time I used it which was the Opera web browser. I remember had to select which distribution of the ten or so it supported from a list, then the exact version. They must have had to maintain dozens of binaries to make that work!

It wasn't just the lack of commercial software - older Linux software was a problem too. If the latest version of a program was more than a couple of years old the likelihood of successfully compiling it was greatly reduced due to some compatibly problem with a library or the compiler itself. I didn't know programming at the time so I had limited ability to fix these problems. When I did manage to fix one I would usually break something else, so at any give time there was always something broken on my computer.

An there were some quite poor decisions than didn't make any sense. On thing that I remember was that typically in Linux programs 'open' and 'save as' dialog boxes didn't allow just copy pasting the full path of the file and hit enter, like Windows dialogs. You had to manually browse to the location every time. Then there was the excessive use of the middle mouse button, which is typically the scroll wheel, which is difficult to press and good way to get carpel tunnel syndrome. I could go on and on, but I don't want to rant.

It was really great to get back to Windows after that experience. I don't take it for granted any more. Windows is slowly deteriorating, it's undeniable. Linux has do doubt improved since I last used it, but I saw how rough it was a the time all the while other Linux users were saying how wonderful it was. Makes me wary of others opinion of it now... There still isn't much commercial GUI user software is there? What little there is often multi-platform and available for Windows too. A lot of the command line programs that were Linux only are now available for Windows.

The topic of "command line" came up.  Command line / shell is all about repeatability.  Repeatability lends to script able which lends to automation.  Even just hitting "UP" a few times to recall a previous command (or history | grep thing and a !1234 bang to rerun).

Automating a pointy-cilcky-draggy-droppy interface is not really worth doing, well outside of large commercial applications with macros etc.

Oh, it absolutely is worth doing! I do it a lot with Auto Hotkey. It's a kind of secret weapon for Windows users. You can use it to toggle a feature that is buried in a menu somewhere with a function key, make five different schematic entry programs that each have their own way to zoom and pan behave the exact same way, add mouse gestures to programs that don't have them, swap key around for some programs only (good for games). I use a lot of different microcontrollers and other programmable parts. They all have their own programming dongles and associated software. Sometimes there is a command line tool available, but sometimes there isn't or it's broken or limited in some silly way (low cost silicon hardware companies are not known for quality software). It's easy enough to press a dodgy vendor supplied GUI programming tool into use for IDE integration or bulk device programming with an Auto Hotkey script. There was nothing like this available for Linux back in the day, I don't know the situation now.

[PlainName]

I like to think of the programs that come with Windows as just examples of what a desktop computer can do for people to learn basic concepts from. They are not really supposed to be the best in their class. In fact, Microsoft got in trouble for packaging a (relatively) high quality web browser software with their operating system once.

Yep, exactly that.

<wall o'text>

Excellent contribution, thank you. Gave me something to think about I wouldn't otherwise.

[paulca]

As a general observation, it seems those, in this thread, who complain about things the most are also those who have the greatest inertia to change.

[PlainName]

You make that sound pejorative. Of course, if someone has spent many years refining their environment then they've not going to appreciate being forced to change and break it. Change isn't in and of itself great, good or desired. And those that aren't invested, get easily bored or like new shiney will think it great to often be trying something new.

[paulca]

You make that sound pejorative. Of course, if someone has spent many years refining their environment then they've not going to appreciate being forced to change and break it. Change isn't in and of itself great, good or desired. And those that aren't invested, get easily bored or like new shiney will think it great to often be trying something new.

I get it in drips and drabs too.  Or rather I have inertia to change, just a lot less of it, or I have to learnt to get started on that route before it hits you.

My "Mac for a Windows/Linux" user thread is an example where I am struggling with MacBook's conventions being utterly WRONG.  Not wrong in opinion but wrong in the shape of people's hands and that some people can actually touch type.

[TizianoHV]

Aesthetically, I find Windows 11 excellent. Window 10 user interface looked unfinished, like place holder graphics.

Same. At first it was basically windows 10 with a new skin (setting app and taskbar renovated). When I got my pc it came with windows 11. I could have downgraded to 10 but I preferred 11.
I don't know why 10 is so praised. The settings app looked like a depressing gray office, the taskbar too. When it just came out made so many older PC unusable because it was so bloated.
When praising win 10 people forget of Cortana, all ads in the start menu, one drive, online seach in the start menu, bing by default always...

Up to 2 years ago I was happy with win 11. I just removed the unnecessary stuff and ok. But then they upgraded the file explorer, task manager, photo viewer, paint, notepad and many other to the current mess. Now they take a considerable amount of time just to launch and load. File explorer, when going through folders uses 10 times more CPU than before, while being slow. The CPU usage is comparable to a web browser. No comment 

So I discovered TotalCommander file explorer, everything search and many other third party programs to substitute the new windows crap. But I couldn't completely replace the file explorer. Every time I had to "save as" I had to wait for the thing to load... and then they started removing many settings (windows snapping...)! If they want to be apple, I won't stay with them. So now I have a second SSD on my laptop with Linux. I use windows a few hours a month for university.


Regarding the "fail" of many: going on linux on one step (removing windows completely, without getting used to alternative programs) is a bit crazy. Many linux programs can be installed on windows. better to get used to them before trying a transition. And then is better to keep windows with double boot for emergency.


(I would use win 7 if I they continued support)

[paulca]

Just another observation.  In my experience Windows users tend to be "Single boxed" users.  They debate on whether to install Windows 7 or Windows 10/11.

Linux aficionados tend to be multi-box, and/or dual boot.

So when it comes to "dedicated boxes for dedicated software/environments" that's just "normal".  Here Linux's reality comes into play.  The kernel, not the distro.  You basically make an OS dedicated to that task.  Look at Wifi Routers these days.  Custom Linux OS, built to do what it does and nothing else.

I run dozens of custom OSes constantly.  Each with their own purpose.  From Nano-Linux's like "Alpine" in containers, to Ubuntu Server, KBuntu.  Not just the OS or it's distro, but the purpose of the OS. 

I have a completely separate set of dev machines on VMs.  A Linux Dev machine and a Windows 10 dev machine.  Both have 16Gb of RAM and 6 cores.  Both can co-exist on either my "physical" Linux or WIndows desktop side by side.  Why are the separate to my 'daily driver'?  Which one?  The office has a Linux + Windows, separate machines.  The bedroom has Linux and the living room has Windows 10.  I can access the VMs from all of them.  They move to me.

Right now, at home, I spend most of my time in Linux, KUbuntu on a "litre PC" or the Windows 10 gaming PC.  However I always have access to the dev servers (full graphical desktops on them in 4K 30fps).

Now I also have 2 Macs to sheppard in.  The networking, power, USB, displays all went without any manually intervention except a wifi password and accepting the docking stations.

They have pros and cons across the board and the best solution is not "This over that", it's both, or all of them together.

[paulca]

On running Windows 7.  As long as you are aware of the risks are able to mitigate what you can and avoid what you can't.  Sure.

If I had a need to run Windows 7 it will likely be some dumb USB device or interface to an old bit of hardware that only runs on Windows 7.  So I appreciate that scenario exists.  I have even seen Windows 98 on computers in commercial premises often running machines/printers/cutters etc.

Windows 7 however is unique for a specific reason.  It is around that time that everything began "offline and local" and began moving at pace to "online, cloud and dynamic".  The straggling dialup users became the minority.  People were now online 24/7.

What I'm getting at is...  as long as you remain on the "offline and local" focused use case for the Windows 7 box, you will be fine.  Obviously your NAT firewall.  However I would also add a Windows side "Personal firewall" and block ALL internet outbound traffic and then approve what you actually use/need.  Treat it as a "normally offline, dials up if it needs it" style box.

Could "I" user Windows 7 in the day job?  No.  If I did it would be negligence.

[PlainName]

Linux aficionados tend to be multi-box, and/or dual boot.

That's a bit confusing, particularly given the rest of that post. It's not the stuff you run in a VM or headless in a rack that we are talking about here. This is about your primary machine, the one you use all the time. So, for instance, when I say I run W7 that's what I use all the time. It's my primary workhorse. But I have other PCs that run Linux and W10, and VMs that run all of that and some other stuff. It's that primary - W7 for me - that is being discussed.

Now, having got that out of the way, I can't believe that anyone dual booting is invested in their machine OS. Why? Because there is no possibility of just running up that app on the other OS for a moment to check something. No, it's a shut this down and everything I'm doing, wait for the reset, then the reboot, select the other OS, bo....ot, and now for a couple of seconds run that app and damn, I forgot what I was checking.