OS-as-a-service needs to be made illegal, ffs
It makes some sense for business & enterprise stuff, but not for household/consumer computers & devices. That's just rent-seeking and forced obsolescence. There is no good reason a home computer from the past fifteen years should have security patches withheld because the manufacturers want people to throw them away and buy and brand new ones.
I kind of get it, but I feel like even in a b2b context you shouldn't be allowed to charge a subscription for something as low level as the OS.
Now if Microsoft wants to offer paid support subscriptions for business customers (they might already do, I didn't look) that I would be fine with.
Of course, businesses would just pivot in the other direction and speed up the release cycle to every year or two, making smaller and smaller improvements. No system will be perfect. I just hope we get to a better solution than "constant vigilance" eventually, whatever it looks like.
Could you imagine having to pay apple a monthly fee just because you use iOS on their phone?
Or pay Google every month to use android?
Except that you can keep upgrading windows or just install linux and be up to date with the security patches for like 10+ years, your phone runs out of support in like 5-6 years in the best case and then good luck using these banking apps securely.
Xbox Live and Playstation Plus: backing slowly out of the room
Actually I'd prefer a petition for Microsoft to drop Windows support entirely.
Even better: petition for Microsoft to release the Windows source code under the GPL
Just switch to Linux, guys. You can do it!
Sadly besides freecad all the other CAD programs i use are not made for linux
They really should. Windows 11 has the bullshit "requirement" of needing SecureBoot so it can't work on BIOS motherboards, only UEFI ones. This is different than saying you no longer support 32 bit CPUs. There's no reason to require fucking SecureBoot. Seriously. It's like someone saying they won't sell you a TV if your house doesn't have a lock in the door and then advertising their TV as secure because of that.
Your entire statement here stems from not knowing what you're talking about. That's OK. I'll provide some insight.
Secure Boot is a security feature of UEFI that only allows trusted, cryptographically signed operating systems to boot. The nature of this prevents rootkits. Software that runs before the OS and injects itself. BIOS has many hard limitations and disadvantages over the modern standard that is UEFI. Your comparison going from 32 to 64 bit architecture is quite fitting. It's not that different. There are many hard limitations and disadvantages to 32 bit. It's unfit for today's standards due to lack of features and security. All aspects of technology have to move forward.
Yes, but you could still buy a new motherboard without UEFI support a year ago, and there are still some units in stock online.
It's way, way too early to drop support of an OS that is the latest version that can be run on hardware that current.
People who spent 3 grand building a computer in 2021 should be able to have OS support for at least a decade. They can't upgrade their OS, so the latest OS they could purchase should be maintained longer.
If Win11 didn't fucking go "naw bro you don't have a LoJack on your motherboard so no install" I'd be like whatever but since it does they need to keep supporting it for at least a decade or remove the Trusted chip requirement. I know you can bypass it, but nobody in business is gonna do that and neither is Grandma.
“Please sir, could I have some more?” - windows user
“Huh, what?” - Linux user
Considering it should have been the last Windows ever... Yeah.
Remember when Windows 10 were advertised as the final and only Windows? Pepperidge farm remembers...
Linux is something I've tried to switch too a few times but but the cost of lost software would make it a more expensive choice than windows. Its gotten better and more things work but I'd still be losing some stuff I use quite often, both games and tools for work.
I have multiple machines for different use cases, so I switch between Windows, MacOS, and different Linux flavors constantly. They all have their benefits and drawbacks.
People like to push Linux gaming, but 90% game support still can't beat 100% support. Meanwhile, I wouldn't let Windows ever even touch a server machine. You can trust software like Ubuntu Server or Amazon Linux to be stable if you're not touching it, while Windows likes to keep you on your toes...
MacOS is a good middle ground but not one I would personally use outside of a work machine. It's fairly stable, and it has a Unix style base so it can run Shell happily. Meanwhile software is seemingly a horrible mixed bag that has only been exasperated with the Arm jump. For a computer noob however, it's great. If you don't mind staying in Apple's little zoo then you're not going to have issues.
I don't know why I went on this ramble.
MacOS is a good middle ground but not one I would personally use outside of a work machine.
I fail to see how it's a "middle ground" between the drawbacks you mentioned before.
When it comes to gaming, Mac OS is the absolute bottom of the barrel, compatibility is utterly atrocious. With Apple's insistence not to allow Vulkan drivers, they pulled the rug out of any leaps Mac OS could have made in that regard (like Linux did).
Apple also pulled the plug on any server capabilities Mac OS once had.
So, when it comes to gaming or server use, Mac OS would be my absolute last choice, not a middle ground.
Software choice is limited, but software quality is generally high and for some professions, the choice is flawless: when it comes to content creation, Apple's ecosystem is hard to beat.
'Middle ground for the layman' might have been better wording.
For my work specifically, native Shell support is a big plus over Windows.
or, you know, just switch to linux. several distros are basically just as usable out of box as anything microsoft has released.
I've tried and gaming is a lot better than it was, but I still prefer Windows in that department though I do stick with SteamOS for the Steam Deck and haven't bothered running Windows on it.
yeah I'm mid transition myself - probably switch for good when win10 goes EoL. I tried win11 and hate it.
Haha, translated petition demands Microsoft earns less money and loosens up control over their users. Ain't happening.
These people... install linux! Your computer aren't made to run just one single OS.
Please let me keep these old chains for a bit longer!
We must continue to improve freedom-respecting operating systems so that more users will switch.
You know when you have an issue with your Linux so you air it on a public forum and are overrun with useless comments that you should switch to Arch because it's so much better and you're stupid if you don't?
Yeah.
I'm still on Windows 10. Are the complaints people have over windows 11 overblown or valid?
Some valid, a lot overblown. Take everything with a grain of salt.
A lot of people on Lemmy revere Linux to the point that Windows anything is a dirty word, so negative qualities are amplified quite substantially in discussions here.
I use Windows 11 daily on my personal laptop. As (what I am assuming to be) a typical end user, I will say I don't hate or love it any more than Windows 10. But I've never been one to nitpick over small details as much as others seem to.
I'm generally unfazed by start menu changes because I access the majority of my apps by just typing the name into the start menu. The dedicated search button in Windows 10 is superfluous for that reason, so I never used it and don't miss it. Rounded corners vs straight corners in the UI is essentially meaningless. And while Windows 11 currently does not allow you to reposition the taskbar to other sides of the screen, Windows 10 doesn't allow the taskbar and start menu to be centered, so pick your poison.
I think the right click context menu is improved in Windows 11 over 10.
Honestly, a bit of both. It probably gets more hate than it deserves but there's a lot of pointless change just for the sake of changing things. It's better than Win10 on a Surface, touch screen and pen support have improved. But beyond that, I don't really see a reason to jump to it until they force the issue by ending support for 10.
Tried it for the first time today and I hated it. Everything I organized for the start menu is gone and they replaced it with a stupid apps menu. It definitely runs sluggishly.
My PC doesn't fill the requirements for windows 11 and yet it was trying to update to it. (I7 2600 works fine, but not supported)
Installed Ubuntu and just didn't look back
I understand the CPU hardware limitations due to Spectre/Meltdown issusles, but at the same time it is an ecological disaster. Two decades ago you would ditch your hardware frequently, simply because it could not run any new application. Now I have systems which do have more than appropriate computing power for my specific tasks and are forcefully obsoleted. They should at least extent Windows 10 critical fixes until 2030.
I believe the situation will cause to Windows 10 to become the next Windows XP immortal ghost for quite some time.
I’m not a windows user but it seems every time there’s a new version people swear they’ll never use it and that the old version should be supported forever… and then eventually that “horrible” version becomes the next version that people won’t let go of… Are you guys okay?
Basically Microsoft tends to release operating systems in a 2 stage cycle. Every other version of Windows does something new and innovative, and then the next version is more polished, stable, and normal.
95 - new, innovative, and crappy
98 - solid
Then it got weird. They wanted to stop building the consumer version of Windows on top of DOS, and move it on to the NT kernel as 2000. The consumer version wasn't ready by the deadline, so they released 2000 for business only, and released a new DOS based Windows Me.
2000 - Really nice but boring. Extremely innovative new features for business use (Active Directory). The amount of work they put into Active Directory is probably why they didn't have the new consumer friendly UI ready in time. It's a rock solid OS but they significantly missed their goals.
Me - Absolute garbage, a cash grab. They basically put something out to satisfy the bean counters since they couldn't market NT to consumers yet.
XP - They finally pulled it off, and it's a pretty good OS that has the stability of NT, and all the multimedia features that consumers want.
Vista - They rewrote a huge portion of NT to be 64 bit, require signed drivers, and be more stable. The release version was pretty crappy but after 1-2 service packs it was actually pretty decent. But by then its reputation was already tarnished, and overall it was innovative and crappy.
7 - This was a very solid release. They took Vista and refined the UAC system to be less intrusive. Also a really nice new feature where you can use the taskbar like a dock where an app's icon stays in one place, even if it's not running.
8 - Experimental implementation of adding a touch UI to Windows. They made a decent effort but it really felt like a tech demo and nobody recommended it for anything outside of tablet devices. It was dreadful for people using traditional mouse and keyboard.
10 - Another solid OS. They basically took 7, added 8's touch UI features, and figured out how to blend them without it being annoying. The touch interface doesn't get in the way if you're using keyboard and mouse, and vice versa.
11 - I'm really not sure what the purpose of this OS is. I guess they're experimenting with trying to make the Windows UI more Mac-like. The taskbar centers the icons by default so it looks like the MacOS dock, and they're really pushing the new app store where all the apps have to be written with the newer UI libraries that work a lot more like mobile development platforms. So it really seems like Microsoft is planning for a future where Windows can run on many different types of devices and run the same apps. And Windows 11 is kind of a stepping stone to get there.
So Windows 12 should be interesting.
Also, while all of this is going on, with every new release generally comes a server version as well. They're constantly expanding the Active Directory schema and adding a lot of cool new features to Active Directory, such as new Group Policies that can be applied to groups of computers and users throughout an organization, which can automate a ton of things. If you want everybody in an accounting department to have a Q: drive with their QuickBooks files in it, you throw them all into an AD group or OU, and set up a new group policy on that group to map that Q: drive. And now all of those users will have that drive. I think it was starting with Windows server 2008r2 (Windows 7 server basically) and Windows 7, they added new Group Policies that did the drive mapping differently, and they would automatically map without the user even having to log off. Also, if the Group Policy is removed from a user, or a new user is moved into that group, it will automatically handle the changes. There's so much more to Windows than most people realize.
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed