Microsoft says you won't be able to swerve Windows 11 min specs

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

And why all this long tooing and froying?

Oh,because I pointed MS screwing up all the time on the consumer side,has only meant iOS/Android has increasingly been the consumer OS of choice(just the numbers). See how a ton of them jumped in here the second I pointed it out. Interesting.

So all the MS supporters responses?? Oh,this is all part of a perfect plan by MS,everyone should just accept it,MS knows best,etc. Then something,something Office 365 business sales. The competition will all die off,because of their masterplan,etc. On how people should just keep quiet,and they don't care a damn about consumers,because Uncle MS knows best? Seriously,after 20 years of upsets,people have faith in MS?? Is this what tech Stockholm Syndrome looks like?

Not a single one of them can actually criticise what MS is doing,without a positive spin on it and then using "but business sales" to try and bury any negativity about their consumer decisions. Yet in the same breadth can criticise Apple,Google and all their competitors.Hmm. These companies never have your interests in mind,so its upto consumers to defend themselves. Plus don't gush too much for MS in enterprise,because its the competitors which keep them real!

[DanceswithUnix]

My own view, back then and even now with hindsight, wonders whether merging consumer and business markets with the release of XP, may have been the greatest operational mistake Microsoft ever made. From XP onward, two very different markets were vying for attention. One of those markets is modestly sized but understands margins and the other is enormous but expects everything for nothing.

I think the *technology* needed merging. Windows NT was stuck with a Motif style front end, and Windows 95 had been scrubbed up cosmetically but was horribly unstable.

This was also an era when Microsoft were getting the jitters from Linux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents) and seemed mindful that they had been shouting from the rooftops that they offered a simple single Windows platform rather than the array of Unix flavours of the past. In reality, the various Windows APIs were an incompatible mess and getting worse.

Personally I always thought getting an architect from VMS to design their next gen operating system was Microsoft's big dropping of the ball.

The M1 brings no new ideas, only a cut to the bill of materials.

What the M1 brings is control. Apple supposedly whined at Intel for years about poor GPU performance for example. Now they can make the things they want to make.

[cheesemp]

CAT-THE-FIFTH - I think this argument is way to heated. You think Microsoft have dropped the ball. I and other have said no. We obviously have different perspectives on that. Is services going to be more lucrative than Windows/Office? In my experience of being in the software industry its a big fat yes - why do think Adobe only sell Photoshop/illustrator this way.

Look lets be very clear here - I've tried to move away from Microsoft several times in the past (I hated the way Balmer did things. I was on Chrome/Gmail from about the day they launched) but now I find myself increasingly back in the Microsoft fold hating the way Google is moving. Does that make a Microsoft fan boy or just sticking with what works and doesn't box me in?

[3dcandy]

Been busy last few days or so and just revisited this.
The M1 isn't a great chip. It's only great because Apple controls EVERYTHING about it. It performs adequately but what it does do is perform adequately in under 20 watts. Big thing is that an ARM chip in a big.little configuration simply doesn't work well natively in Win 10 at all, thus Win 11. It's only really a tweaked Win 10 but with the industry and everybody saying look at the M1, and Intel and AMD looking at similar ARM based chips (for various) reasons MS have bitten the bullet and done a Windows version that does it right. We can debate the reasons about that and if they have done it the right way till the cows come home but it's the way they are going and nothing we say or write about it is going to change things.

Cat you argue along with Saracen that people are moving away etc. I've said it numerous times, yes people might be, but ENOUGH people aren't for various reasons. M1 chips have poor USB performance with limited amounts of ports for example so plenty of people I know in the music business for example won't go down the M1 route. Also a lot of software that is developed in music for the Mac and the PC doesn't work half as well on ARM as it does on X86 so people are now stuck and plenty seem to be coming back to Windows from Macs simply because a Mac Mini for example won't cut it for them. The others are hanging on for dear life with older Macs but even then they are being left behind. Meanwhile on a PC it's pretty easy to buy a ystem that will run Win 10 (and 11) well without the compromises a Mac makes. Don't even start about Android as that's next to useless for making music, and iOS is a lot better but is getting expensive these days with the ever increasing price of devices.

So where does that leave us? Win 11 will be a success, perhaps not as much as previous versions of windows but still a success. Millions will use it anyhoo. M1 chips will have their fans, people will move to other platforms etc. but in a nutshell not a lot will change. Since last time I commented I've had another 10 or so businesses I work for say they will go Win 11 next year because of continuity and they use office365 and so do all the other companies they rely on...

I can see your arguments people, I can. But for me, your arguments are just not born out by what I see in business daily which is my point.
Things can and will change, but right now they don't appear to be

[Iota]

Is this what tech Stockholm Syndrome looks like?

Not a single one of them can actually criticise what MS is doing,without a positive spin on it and then using "but business sales" to try and bury any negativity about their consumer decisions. Yet in the same breadth can criticise Apple,Google and all their competitors.Hmm. These companies never have your interests in mind,so its upto consumers to defend themselves. Plus don't gush too much for MS in enterprise,because its the competitors which keep them real!

Quite possibly on the syndrome part.

All of the businesses have one thing in common, they're here to profit off consumers. Not a single one really has anyone else's interests in mind and each have their core strengths. On the subject of MS in enterprise markets, I think Amazon are also a very real threat. Personally I'm a user of each of the competitors products, depending on usage scenario. Microsoft wise, it's purely OS, so if they screw that up there are other options available. If end users migrate away from using Windows as their primary OS, how does that end up affecting their other businesses such as 365 and the enterprise environment? It's the one thing in my own opinion they cannot afford to get wrong.

You think Microsoft have dropped the ball. I and other have said no.

Microsoft have repeatedly dropped the ball over the years. Sometimes they seem quite directionless, and they'll buy someone like Nokia and completely drop the ball. Instead of focussing on their core strengths and listening to consumer feedback.

I can only think of Github as an example of how they've not cocked something up.

[Saracen999]

....

Cat you argue along with Saracen that people are moving away etc. I've said it numerous times, yes people might be, but ENOUGH people aren't for various reasons. ...

It's a simple fact that some are, me included.

But I'd like to be shown somewhere where I said "ENOUGH" were?

If that's what you think irritates me about MS, you've missed my point.

I said as far back as the W8 Start Menu arguments that MS were entitled to do what they want. What I don't get is why they do some of it. Why say that removing the old start menu was necessary, when someone promptly comes along with a Classic shell approarch and demonstrates it wasn't?

I said, time after time, give users the choice how they want their system configured. Change the default by all means, but if I want my familiar menu structure, and don't want their damn live tiles, for instance, don't try to force them on me.

I also said, back when W8 was coming, that I thought they were going towards a subscription model, only for lots of people to say that's daft, and no, they aren't. Well, they were, and are.

The core of my argument was never that enough people would leave, or at least not yet. It also wasn't that some users, especially business users, wouldn't be quite happy with a subscription model, and find it beneficial. It certainly has some advantages. It also has disadvantages and for me, those massively outweigh the benefits and that I, personally, was (and am) not paying them a monthly sub, either for Office or Windows.

My final point was about perception, using me as an example. Which was not about what people use, but about how happy they are with what MS is up to. I'd been a pretty content MS user since the early '80's, and had (still have, i think) copies of Windows going back to about v2, way before it was really usuable. I'd also been an Office user since it was Word and Excel, along with Wordperfect, Lotus 123 etc, and even Multiplan on an Apple II. Visicalc, anyone? And a TRS-80 Mk.3.

But their attitude was annoying me to the point of thinking the unthinkable - migrating. Which, reluctantly, I did. I moved several of my core systems to Linux, migrated from MS Office to OpenOffice then Libre, etc. And hey, no, it's not that hard to use Linux, and certainly not hard, at my level, to use Libre Office. Those of my machines that required either software that was Win-only, or drivers for legacy hardware, stayed on mainly Win7, and in a special case, XP but I put them behind an airwall. I'm only using W10 now because new hardware came with it on, and I haven't bothered switching them. Yet.

The point was that they converted a happy long-term user to a Linux user, and one who put up with MS while it suited, but doesn't have to put up with them much longer. What I haven't said, because I have no way to know and I doubt anyone else does either, is how lots of other people still using Windows or Office feel about it - quite content, or quietly getting angry .... or seething? Dunno.

It was highly inconvenient for me to move away from Windows. It took a lot of thinking, investigating,planning, testing etc before I decided it was viable and that I didn't have to just swallow what MS were doing. It wasn't, back then, their current moves. It was where they were going.

I remember citing an analogy something like, it's as if I got on a train to Edinburgh in London, and once it started moving, they decided, nah, we're going to Cardiff instead. Now, Cardiff might be a perfectly nice place to go, but my reasons for being on the train in the first place were still in Edinbugh.

I decided I really didn't want my personal computing train to end up in Cardiff, so I got off, caught a ride back to London and picked a different train company, and went on to Edinburgh. And I was, and still am, very unhappy with being messed about.

What we still don't know is how much damage MS have done to their customer's goodwill. One of the most important assets, if not the most important, to most businesses, is goodwill. But it's hard to read, and the harder it is to switch, the harder it is to lose customers but if you lose enough goodwill, sooner or late, they will. The great danger in that, if the company is tone deaf, is that by the time they notice the damage to goodwill, it's too late. The damage is done, thier is little goodwill left (with some customers) and they are not only willing to switch trains, but getting very keen to, if they can. The time comes when the hassle of staying exceeds the hassle of switching, and by that time, it's too late.

Ask IBM. Back in my early days, they controlled about 70% of the worldwide computer market. on their own. Everybody else, and there were a good couple of dozen fairly major players, split the remaining 30% between them. It was a (quite literally) textbook example of monopoly power. But they were arrogant and tone-deaf. They thought it was baked in, glued on, and inevitable. Then, there was a nascent technology and this little upstart company came along and offered to write a bit of software for those few machines it involved. Big Blue couldn't really be bothered with that tiny little market, as it didn't involve their heavy iron systems, so agreed. And yeah, as I know you and mostly everybody else knows, that was Our Bill, and MS.

But they got a bit (well, a lot) arrogant in turn, and initially didn't really notice when another nascent technology (early smartphone, tablets, etc) came along. After all, PCs were king, Windows ruled the world, and they totally failed to take it seriously enough and devote sufficient resources. They actually thought they could essentially piggy-back a mobile OS off the back of their installed Windows userbase, and foist Windows onto it, sort-of.

Well, we all know how that one went. We now have Apple (who, arrogant-in-chief they maybe, but have something to be arrogant about and DO largely focus on pleasing users) and Android. Oh, and the footnote in history that is MS in the mobile market.

I think we are in another "the world is changing" period. In a funny way, we're going full circle. We started out with computing being the realm of big businesses (those mainframes were serious money). Then, along came the PC and home users got in on the act. Gates and his laughable dream of a PC in every home not only proved to be true, but a massive under-estimate. More like every pocket, and quite a few in each home. Now, we're moving away from PCs entirely in many regards. Some of us, including a large percentage of Hexus users, have "power" type needs, be they gaming, or video capabilities, whether for home media purposes or because they run a YT channel. It's possible, I suppose, to do that from a phone and/or tablet, but far from ideal and involves reduced production values. But in a few years?

But does it need Windows? Frankly, if that was my bag, I'd be using Mac's by now for that, or Linux machines?

As for business users, where subscription services and cloud services makes the most sense, yeah, they may well stick with Windows as a service, and Office as a service, and local "PCs" don't really need to be PCs at all. They're getting to be more and more like the old Unix dumb terminala logging on to remote services, but internet ones instead of LAN. Which means more and more of the real power is in the hands of the service providers, not the user of the "PC".

If that service provider decides to change how they do things, or what they charge, users have really zero option but to put up with it, just like the old days when mainframe users didn't dare annoy their IBM rep.

Consumer users of Windows are in an invidious position. The MS train is still going where it's going, and they can either go there too (no way I am) or get off, which is going to be hard. They can put up with a future even more subscription-based, or they can make do with mobile devices (subscription involved), or switch to Mac or Linux. I'm guessing many will just go mobile, because it's all they need, and the rest will either put up with MS' increasingly service-focussed offering, or jump train to Mac or Linux, both of which are going to be somewhat painful in the transition but perfectly feasible and fine once they get there, as Windows is mutating away from where users controlled how their personal computer platform looked and worked, to where MS does that for them, whether they like the changes or not. Though, I note, Apple has always been a bit dictatorial in how things look, but at least they're consistent. And it's why I went Linux.

[DanceswithUnix]

If end users migrate away from using Windows as their primary OS, how does that end up affecting their other businesses such as 365 and the enterprise environment?

My everyday use of Teams and Outlook has been fine under Linux tbh. I might occasionally fire up a Windows VM for a spreadsheet or something were web based doesn't quite seem to cut it.

I can only think of Github as an example of how they've not cocked something up.

One of the earliest purchases I can remember from Microsoft was buying up SubLogic and re-branding their product as Microsoft Flight Simulator. I think that has gone quite well over the years.

[Corky34]

I can only think of Github as an example of how they've not cocked something up.

Given them time.

I said as far back as the W8 Start Menu arguments that MS were entitled to do what they want. What I don't get is why they do some of it. Why say that removing the old start menu was necessary, when someone promptly comes along with a Classic shell approarch and demonstrates it wasn't?

IMO that's because they try to address a new market, a challenger, in this case mobile computing. When they've done that historically they've shifted their focus from an existing market segment to the new, often at the expense of the former. An example that readily springs to mind is how they were all in on gaming on a PC, releasing new versions of DirectX almost yearly, because 3DFX's Glide was fighting with them for market dominance. However when Sony released their first game console they saw that as a threat so their focus switched from gaming on a PC to their new Xbox, and it only really shifted back when they thought AMD's Mantle may threaten the dominance of DirectX.

I'm sure people can come up with other examples of where MS where tightly focused on a particular thing only to all but ignore it when the next shiny thing comes along.

I said, time after time, give users the choice how they want their system configured. Change the default by all means, but if I want my familiar menu structure, and don't want their damn live tiles, for instance, don't try to force them on me.

That, i know, is down to how Windows codebase works, or rather doesn't. There's parts of it that no one knows how it works because the developers who wrote the code have long since moved on, they literally fear touching it in case it breaks something. There's still code from Windows 95 in Windows 10 with very few people who understand it.

[cheesemp]

I can only think of Github as an example of how they've not cocked something up.

I think that because a lot of these purchases are from the Balmer days. Nadella is doing a way better job. Where as Balmer was all Windows everywhere and just threw new ideas out there with little though - Nadella is Services/Cloud. He's bought the corporation out of the hole Balmer stuck them in as Balmer was stuck in the past. People need to understand while a CEO cannot completely change a corporation they do set strategy and he's getting in right for the most part. Where as I think Google/Apple have lost it since the change of founder CEOs recently.

[3dcandy]

A lot of arguing that really proves nothing. One person here or there moving away doesn't make ANY difference in the grand scheme of things - especially someone who isn't really what MS are looking at.

We can debate this for ever. The figures suggest Windows is GAINING ground not losing it. Desktop market share is down ever so slightly whilst sales are up massively so in effect Windows is gaining users not market share in effect.

I can only say that some people would argue for the sake of it, when in effect their argument means zilch. Another big corporation I work for has announced they will be updating their setups to AMD and Win 11 next year. I reckon that I now have at least 100,000 sales of new Win 11 setups next year, all of which will have Office365 and associated services from Microsoft on board. This is what myself and others are saying. So about -5 versus +100,000 in this thread then if we're keeping score

[Saracen999]

....

That, i know, is down to how Windows codebase works, or rather doesn't. There's parts of it that no one knows how it works because the developers who wrote the code have long since moved on, they literally fear touching it in case it breaks something. There's still code from Windows 95 in Windows 10 with very few people who understand it.

If that's true, it's pretty unconvincing when a third party utility house manages to create a tool to 'fix' it so quickly. Maybe they need a better developer or two.

[Saracen999]

A lot of arguing that really proves nothing. One person here or there moving away doesn't make ANY difference in the grand scheme of things - especially someone who isn't really what MS are looking at.

We can debate this for ever. The figures suggest Windows is GAINING ground not losing it. Desktop market share is down ever so slightly whilst sales are up massively so in effect Windows is gaining users not market share in effect.

I can only say that some people would argue for the sake of it, when in effect their argument means zilch. Another big corporation I work for has announced they will be updating their setups to AMD and Win 11 next year. I reckon that I now have at least 100,000 sales of new Win 11 setups next year, all of which will have Office365 and associated services from Microsoft on board. This is what myself and others are saying. So about -5 versus +100,000 in this thread then if we're keeping score

That sort of count is not what I'm saying, and you know it.

[3dcandy]

That sort of count is not what I'm saying, and you know it.

I don't see what you're getting at? With all that's been said a few of us are saying we don't think an individuals point of view makes little difference, so what ARE you saying? I have proof that Win 11 will be used by the majority, you and others argue it won't....

I really cannot see what you are arguing about given what has been said throughout the thread, or is it really that you personally won't use it?

[DanceswithUnix]

I don't see what you're getting at? With all that's been said a few of us are saying we don't think an individuals point of view makes little difference, so what ARE you saying? I have proof that Win 11 will be used by the majority, you and others argue it won't....

I really cannot see what you are arguing about given what has been said throughout the thread, or is it really that you personally won't use it?

Whilst I'm not generally disagreeing with you, I must say your sample seems to have a pretty firm selection bias. In the same way that from where I'm sitting, MS can't possibly get professional sales away from our Linux boxes, but I recognise that not everyone does the sort of engineering that Linux is so good at, or runs the sort of servers that Linux is so good at as we do.

But for basic sales & secretarial work, Windows is unbeatable. All depends on the people you interact with!

[3dcandy]

Whilst I'm not generally disagreeing with you, I must say your sample seems to have a pretty firm selection bias. In the same way that from where I'm sitting, MS can't possibly get professional sales away from our Linux boxes, but I recognise that not everyone does the sort of engineering that Linux is so good at, or runs the sort of servers that Linux is so good at as we do.

But for basic sales & secretarial work, Windows is unbeatable. All depends on the people you interact with!

Erm well that's all I can really go on isn't it? lol
As for Saracen, I *think* I understand what he's saying..... but I can only go on the fact that uptake this time round is huge, much quicker than Win 10 but with a hardware refresh built in as well to the detriment of other OS's in a basic general office (at home as well) computing environment. I honestly reckon that Win 11 will have more users than OSX by the end of this year at this rate, and they all seem to be being used with an Office365 and associated services bundle which is, of course, where MS is making it's money these days. The few that bought into alternative OS's have ditched that completely.

Servers, well that's different totally

[Corky34]

If that's true, it's pretty unconvincing when a third party utility house manages to create a tool to 'fix' it so quickly. Maybe they need a better developer or two.

Raymond Chen, a programmer who has been involved in Windows for more than 25 years, answered a question about it a while back.

Also a while back (2013) a developer made an anonymous post on hacker news, it's about why Windows is slower than many operating systems, but he touches on the reasons why when he says...

Another reason for the quality gap is that that we've been having trouble keeping talented people. Google and other large Seattle-area companies keep poaching our best, most experienced developers, and we hire youths straight from college to replace them. You find SDEs and SDE IIs maintaining hugely import systems. These developers mean well and are usually adequately intelligent, but they don't understand why certain decisions were made, don't have a thorough understanding of the intricate details of how their systems work, and most importantly, don't want to change anything that already works.

These junior developers also have a tendency to make improvements to the system by implementing brand-new features instead of improving old ones. Look at recent Microsoft releases: we don't fix old features, but accrete new ones. New features help much more at review time than improvements to old ones.

...

Look: Microsoft still has some old-fashioned hardcore talented developers who can code circles around brogrammers down in the valley. These people have a keen appreciation of the complexities of operating system development and an eye for good, clean design. The NT kernel is still much better than Linux in some ways --- you guys be trippin' with your overcommit-by-default MM nonsense --- but our good people keep retiring or moving to other large technology companies, and there are few new people achieving the level of technical virtuosity needed to replace the people who leave. We fill headcount with nine-to-five-with-kids types, desperate-to-please H1Bs, and Google rejects. We occasionally get good people anyway, as if by mistake, but not enough. Is it any wonder we're falling behind? The rot has already set in.