Microsoft's turned Windows into a cesspool, but it wants to do better

KETTLE When it comes to making decisions that piss off your user base, no one knows how to do it like Microsoft. Relentless Copilot pushing, the second-chance out-of-box experience, a bunch of sloppy, buggy patches, and other bad decisions have plagued the Windows maker in recent months. CEO Satya Nadella and Windows boss …

[Anonymous Coward]

Transcript please. Podcasts are a turnoff.

[jake]

Concur.

[David 132]

Thirded.

In terms of communicating information, it's about as efficient as searching the web for "how to do X" and being offered those youtube videos that take 10 minutes HEY GUYS REMEMBER TO LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE to communicate a perfectly simple FIRST A WORD FROM OUR SPONSORS! point that could be explained in 5 lines of text & a diagram.

Bah, ignore me, I am just grumpy today.

[Bebu sa Ware]

Bah, ignore me, I am just grumpy today.

I am just grumpy… every day. Not that anyone takes any notice… of anything much nowadays.

But I also concur. Youtube etc is flooded with illiterates who are convinced that their inability to convey a cogent linear argument or explanation in writing is more than compensated by a surfeit of waffling and uncorrelated shaky video. Clearly the idea of using a script and storyboard has never been considered.

So Microslop is transforming itself from an ever enlarging cesspool into a sewerage treatment business. A one stop shit·2·slop shop.

[Fred Daggy]

Re: Bah, ignore me, I am just grumpy today.

The Youtube algorith does not reward correct, coherant nor clear. Sadly.

It rewards views. The long the better (in order to insert more ads). The creators are just following the money. Click-bait, content-biat and view-bait, eventually you'll get to Master-bait.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or recipies which have a biographical novella with 80,000 adverts describing their life affirming experiences with BBQ sauce before the ingredients list

[HXO]

I totally agree that A/V rarely is better than text and images.

But I encounter lots of people, even in technical fields, that will rather sit through a 15min video than turn their brain on and read for 3min.

Another thing, a question: If you do make intructions/help material and and want to publish it, where do you do it? I used to use my personal site, but traffic disappeared decades ago, then there are ifixit for some things and another one I forget? Somewhere unlike stackoverflow where everything turns in to an argument... Somewhere for all categories of info.

I am afraid YT has won this one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes

God I hate instruction manuals or guides that are presented as feckin YT videos.

Unless there is a benefit to some visual component of what I'm trying to find out reading it is so much more preferable.

[Sandtitz]

Re: Yes

Sometimes a video is worth a thousand words.

The video instructions on how to use a Brother sewing machine were much more helpful than trying to understand the manual on how to route the threads and use the accessories.

[blu3b3rry]

That 15 minutes of watching the video often turns into 20 minutes or more. Skipping back and forth double-checking certain steps is a pain, even more so if the way the video is paced is completely off.

Not issues I encounter when reading anything printed, where you can refer back to earlier sections with ease and absorb the information at your own pace. Plus it doesn't tend to get interrupted halfway through with a sponsorship for things you don't want.

[Boris the Cockroach]

Its worse when you are trying to learn howto remove the di-lithium chamber on your warp capable drone , and the guy doing the u-tub video spends the first 15 minutes waffling about how much better Picard is over Kirk*, then spends 5 minutes waffling over every little thing hes doing until finally you notice he's using the wrong tool.... arrgh new video time

*we all know the best captain was John Sheridan... And if you dont agree , my friend Bester will change your mind

[The Oncoming Scorn]

Just before Lyta shreds Besters.

[vtcodger]

Transcripts

Another vote for transcripts. Unless it's something to listen to in the car or The Lock Picking Lawyer or an instructional video that actually shows me how replace the defromulator module on my flux capacitor (including how to get to that damn 15mm? bolt I can sort of see but can't really reach with normal tools) I rarely listen to or watch podcasts/videos. I seem to have lots of company.

BTW, when I tried to persuade Gemini to generate a transcript of your podcast, it didn't generate one, Instead it directed me to non-other than riverside,com -- which seems to be where the Reg is linking to get to Spotify/Apple Music. It claimed that riverside.com does free transcripts. Is there a story behind that? Is it interesting?

[degraded RAID]

Re: Transcripts

Normal tools? Are you suggesting a sonic screwdriver isn't normal?

[jake]

Re: Transcripts

No, it's not a normal tool. It's just a made-for-TV prop.

In fact, it's a prop that the writers wrote out of the series decades ago because it made plot development difficult. They only brought it back because today's writers are so bad at their jobs that they needed it to get out of jams of their own making.

[The Oncoming Scorn]

Re: Transcripts

Well a normal screwdriver works on wood...

[vtcodger]

Re: Transcripts

A Sonic screwdriver can remove bolts? Not just whack their heads off? How? Is there perhaps an instructional video on YouTube?

[Patch Wombat]

Re: Transcripts needed

Need a transcript. Zero patience for opening credits, theme music and talking piles of hair. I can read so much faster and skip useless drivel much more quickly than I can in a video of a chat show. This isn't an article it's a click-bait ad for a podcast.

[Taliesinawen]

Transcript please. Podcasts are a turnoff.

Anonymous: “Transcript please. Podcasts are a turnoff.”

There's a transcript over on Spotify but printed speech isn't any much better.

[jake]

What's wrong at Redmond?

It'd be far more succinct to answer "what's right at Redmond?".

From my perspective, about all they have going for them is market-share. Nothing else from that camp is trustworthy.

In order to regain trust, it'd probably be easier to close the entire place down, dump (or open-source[0]) all the existing source code, and start again from scratch with absolutely none of the current management. And even then I would hesitate to trust anything coming out of Microsoft.

_{[0] As a gesture of goodwill.}

[SnailFerrous]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

Also, change the name from Microsoft to anything else (Use software from Anything Else Corp. It's really good!)

Also, demolish the buildings, plough the sites with salt and build elsewhere from scratch. .

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

Name changes rarely work, look at Hermes -> Evri as just one example. People aren't stupid.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

That's because the name change is seen as easier than fixing the problems that got them the bad reputation so that it's done instead. It tells you a lot about a company's attitude to fixing problems.

[Ramis101]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

Windscale...... Need i say any more.

[David 132]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

Don't forget "Consignia".

And "Abrdn" (th invstmnt cmpny tht cnt ffrd vwls).

[Inventor of the Marmite Laser]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

Austin, Morris, MG, Rover, Vanden Plas, Riley, Wolsley, Austin Morris, British Leyland, BL. All progressively disappearing up each others exhausts before disappearing completely.

[simonlb]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

The only net positive I will (very, very grudgingly) concede to the current iteration of Windows, is that it is more stable than previous versions. However, nothing else about it is positive, being bloated, clunky, unintuitive and unusable for anyone who just wants to get stuff done. That and all the adverts and AI shit in there - yes, I know you can turn it off but it shouldn't be in there in the first place, it should be something you can opt into later if you want it. An OS should never get in your way, it should just let you get on with your work.

Current Windows is probably the best worst example of feature creep ever seen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

TBH I would disagree, it's just that the instability is less glaring.

Yes W11 does not BSOD very often but it does lockup, glitch, go slow and fail in other less significant ways way more often than any other version of Windows I can remember right back to 98SE.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

How can you call something with so many out-of-band emergency patches "stable?"

From what I read, it sounds like many thousands of users are screaming about it being anything but.

[Taliesinawen]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

> The only net positive I will (very, very grudgingly) concede to the current iteration of Windows, is that it is more stable than previous versions

Leaving aside the stability issue, I find the GUI less than useful and basically just gets in the way. The search box is next to useless in finding files. I have to use “Everything” from Void Tools. The standard Menu occupies a third of screen real estate and is next to useless. I have to resort to using “Open Shell Menu” and so on. Don't get me going on “File Explorer”. What genius through it was a good idea putting the rename and delete icon next to one another.

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

"As a gesture of goodwill."

Goodwill? That's an excuse that not even Thames Water has tried.

[jake]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

Yes, goodwill.

Think about how many times you've heard people bellyaching in this very forum about companies orphaning software for any number of reasons, thus sending perfectly good hardware to the tip years or decades before its sell-by date. Mood-lighting that required "the cloud" was a fairly recent example.

Making it open source would allow that large piece of equipment that helps keep people alive at you local hospital to continue running a trifle longer, thus stopping the world-wide healthcare system from having to spend (probably) billions of dollars unnecessarily.

And that's just healthcare. There are thousands of other industries that rely on Windows, for better or for worse. Farming (and ancillary industries) comes to mind. So does shipping.

_{Note that this is all pointless speculation. Microsoft's not going to take up my initial suggestion to fire all existing management. Even if it is the logical thing to do.}

[nijam]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

> [0] As a gesture of goodwill.

Goodwill? I doubt the open source community would see it that way.

[jake]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

There is plenty of open source software out there that isn't under the auspices of "the open source community" (whatever that means).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

If their code is so bad, why open source it? To laugh? Or wouldn't be better just to delete it one for all?

Or freetards just dream of a free version of Windows?

You're only right the problem is locate in the management - Nadella and his underlings are only money-manager, they do not understsand products, and are strangely Google-firendly:

1) The mighty Microsoft couldn't develop a new browser and had to adopt Google's one - despite clouds being accessed via a browser

2) Outlook instead of being rewritten on Microsoft technology, becomes a web app running over Electron frameworik - which again runs on Google-controlled Chromium engine

3) Same is true for Visutal Studio Code

4) Nadella killed Windows Phone (and overlooked obvious integrations into Windows desktop) - and Android benefitted more than iOS, and MS integrated Android into Windows desktop.

Is it just because Microsoft transferred development to people who didn't even now MS technologies. or management decided to avoid dogfooding for some strange reasons?

Anyway a new OS with a new design is exactly what we need. Maybe build on new CPUs that understand security too, and not only "speed".

[Sandtitz]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

"The mighty Microsoft couldn't develop a new browser and had to adopt Google's one - despite clouds being accessed via a browser"

The market had spoken already. Throwing millions on an unwinnable uphill battle? Now they get Google's labour for free.

Should Google have put more millions or billions into the Google+ carcass? Why not?

"Outlook instead of being rewritten on Microsoft technology, becomes a web app running over Electron frameworik"

Outlook is rewritten in Edge Webview, which is not Electron. Based on Chromium, true.

"Nadella killed Windows Phone (and overlooked obvious integrations into Windows desktop)"

People didn't want Windows Phone, and no amount of money would have helped at that point. Flogging a dead horse rarely helps.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

> Throwing millions on an unwinnable uphill battle?

Why "unwinnable"? When Mozilla started Firefox and Google Chrome, were they sure they could displace Internet Explorer? That's called competition and having Google controlling wbe standards with Chrome is as bad as MS controlling them with IE. It's pretty idiotic to think "it it's not from Microsoft is good and we don't need anything else". Enjoiy the limitations to privacy plug-ins... And it there is a company that can invest millions, well that's Microsoft.

> Should Google have put more millions or billions into the Google+ carcass?

Unlike Google+, a web broswer today controls the access to most applications and data. The fact that Google failed over and over just shows Chrome is not something that can't be attacked.

> Outlook is rewritten in Edge Webview,

Edge VwebView is just the rendering control.

> People didn't want Windows Phone

You didn't want Windows phone. Sure, there was a lot of anti-MS flack as usual, but again, competition is better. Enjoy two walled gardens without any competition, sure, as long as they aren't MS it's fine to be in a cage, yes? People didn't want Android either, just Apple wasn't for everyone, since there were no cheap models.

[Sandtitz]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

'Why "unwinnable"?'

Google had/has a strong foothold in browser market. Microsoft could spend hundreds of millions to produce a product that is *free*. What is the business case? Google is essentially an advertisement company and profits from the user data telemetry and are dependent on controlling the web. The uphill battle starts from having to mimic Chrome's render engine because webmaster rarely care about anything else than Blink. Google can easily cause delays at Youtube for Firefox users and then people complain how slow Firefox is.

For many people, web search = Google. It doesn't matter if DDG or some other search is better or has zero ads - the vast masses do not change their habits because they do not know better.

"When Mozilla started Firefox and Google Chrome, were they sure they could displace Internet Explorer?"

I don't think Mozilla had such ambitions. Did Elinks or Konqueror projects start as a means to conquer the browser market?

I think Google was very clever with both their software and its delivery mechanisms. Chrome was lean and fast, probably much better quality code than IE and it's years of cruft, mandatory backwards compatibility and tying into Windows.

Google.com pushed Chrome if you were using another browser, and it was bundled with many 3rd party software including Acrobat Reader - opt-in - causing lots of installations and automatic replacement of IE.

"having Google controlling wbe standards with Chrome is as bad as MS controlling them with IE."

I don't disagree.

"It's pretty idiotic to think "it it's not from Microsoft is good and we don't need anything else". Enjoiy the limitations to privacy plug-ins..."

I haven't said anything like that. I personally don't use Google - I have zero Google software on my computers, block all their trackers even here at ElReg and use other web searches. I'm perfectly fine with Firefox and Edge.

"Unlike Google+, a web broswer today controls the access to most applications and data. The fact that Google failed over and over just shows Chrome is not something that can't be attacked."

Google+ was a half-hearted attempt anyway, and they believed in the mantra "If you build it, they will come"

Chrome can be attacked. Please come up with a good strategy - I don't know how. Microsoft or some other company could blow Billions into it, but then again, so could Google.

"Edge VwebView is just the rendering control."

Let me repeat: Electron is not Webview and Electron is not used with the New crappy Outlook.

"You didn't want Windows phone.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I had Lumia 820 and when it bit the dust I also had Lumia 640. I think the platform was really good and easy to use.

"Sure, there was a lot of anti-MS flack as usual, but again, competition is better."

I don't disagree at all.

"Enjoy two walled gardens without any competition, sure, as long as they aren't MS it's fine to be in a cage, yes?"

Well, we could have three walled gardens now if only software developers had written software for WinPhone. They didn't and it was sort of understandable because each garden owners have their own development tools, publishing software on more platforms take more time and money.

Youtube was a requirement that Google didn't code for Windows Phone and Microsoft's attempt to create Youtube viewer was blocked by Google if you remember.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

Google achieved a foofhold when IE was dominant intalling it surreptitiously with "free" software - something Firefox never did. What's the business case? Today a browser is the gateway to most information and applications, and allows to control web standards. Should everybody let it to Google? Why? Chrome is today what Windows was thirty years ago. Why Windows domination was bad, and Chrome not? And Chrome does collect far more data about you than Windows or IE did thirty years ago.

Firefox was created to counter IE dominance. And Google was not "clever", was criminal. People cried loudly because IE came preinstalled with Windows, but was OK that Chrome got installed without user consent, OK, Google is goooooood, MS is baaaaad.

> Chrome can be attacked. Please come up with a good strategy

Deliver a good browser not built on Chromium? Do you mean LibreOffice should close shop because they have no way to compete with Office? Linux should stop desktop distros because they have no chances? Does developing a web browser requires "billions"? C'mon.

> Let me repeat: Electron is not Webview and Electron is not used with the New crappy Outlook.

Let me repeat: EdgeWebView like the previous IE-based control is a used in **native** applications to display web contents. If the new Outlook doesn't run in pure Electron, it is an Electron-like framework. Still using Google's Chrome code as its engine. It's not .NET or any other MS technology.

> Stop putting words in my mouth.

You said people didn't want Windows Phone. It takes time to make a new platform competitive and appealing. How long Linux took to become a viable server platform (and is still unable to become a viable desktop platform).. It was clear it wouldn't be a sudden success - the MS stigma came with it, because there are people who hate MS just because they believe it makes them look clever.

> Well, we could have three walled gardens now

Let more competition come in, and walled garden will crumble, exactly because developers would become fed up to have to cover different platforms. And companies would start to look at anti-trust in a different way because they will feel compelled to attack competitors as well. Let a cartel form - just like the Apple-Google one, and then stopping it will become far more difficult. Your example about Youtube is a perfect example of anti-competitive behaviour. Now things are changing....

So, in the end, what do you think MS should do? Just get back to Windows 7 and nothing else?

Anyway, my original post was about a company the size of Microsoft that stopped to invest in many end-user technologies. MS could turn into a cloud-only company, but how clever that idea would be, letting others control the access to that cloud, on their own terms?

[Sandtitz]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

"Google achieved a foofhold when IE was dominant intalling it surreptitiously with "free" software - something Firefox never did. What's the business case?"

Google is an advertisement company, they had bought Doubleclick earlier and they are playing the long game here. Chrome is paying the dividends now back to Google.

"Today a browser is the gateway to most information and applications, and allows to control web standards. Should everybody let it to Google?"

Not at all.

"Why? Chrome is today what Windows was thirty years ago. Why Windows domination was bad, and Chrome not?"

I'm not claiming Google/Chrome domination is good at all. Microsoft had a great run during IE4 and up around IE6 when it was among the best browsers (even if the security was lacking with ActiveX and such). For me it was Opera after Netscape Navigator evolution stopped and Netscape Communicator was garbage. The Opera rewrite pushed me to Firefox.

"Firefox was created to counter IE dominance."

No, it wasn't. It was created to make a simple Mozilla browser instead of the fat suite Mozilla was pushing with browser+email+IRC combined.

Firefox had a good run against IE until Chrome stole the scene.

"And Google was not "clever", was criminal."

There was no crime even though it was despised thing to do. You have to be clever when you want to oust the market leader (MS) with endless resources.

"OK, Google is goooooood, MS is baaaaad."

Look, kmorwath...I can see you're really upset about this...I honestly think you should sit down calmly...take a stress pill and think things over...kmorwath...stop. Stop, will you?

"Deliver a good browser not built on Chromium?"

"If you build it they will come" is a great fantasy but just for being the best product does not automatically win people over or change their browsers automatically. Most people are using their OS provided browser and do not contemplate using anything else if it renders sufficiently well the websites they visit.

Firefox is a good browser not built on Chromium.

"Do you mean LibreOffice should close shop because they have no way to compete with Office? Linux should stop desktop distros because they have no chances?"

Not at all.

"Does developing a web browser requires "billions"? C'mon"

No, but the marketing and push will certainly require loads of money. Google probably paid a lot of money to Adobe and others to bundle their browser.

"the new Outlook doesn't run in pure Electron, it is an Electron-like framework"

There, there. That wasn't too hard to admit.

"You didn't want Windows phone." -- "Stop putting words in my mouth." -- "You said people didn't want Windows Phone."

Is that some odd version of gaslighting?

"People didn't want Windows Phone" which is directly reflected by its low sales volume, a fact. Because it lacked several critical software already available on other platforms, people chose Androids and iPhones. Google was never going to code software for it. Similarly other important everyday software was missing. MS even had to pay Rovio to code Angry Birds for it.

"It takes time to make a new platform competitive and appealing."

The market share was always low single digits and it was a dying platform by the time Windows Phone 10 emerged.

"Your example about Youtube is a perfect example of anti-competitive behaviour."

Yes, it was anti-competitive but Google is still free to choose the platforms they code for.

Also, around the same time MS was running their own Scroogled ad campaign against Google. No love lost between the two.

"Anyway, my original post was about a company the size of Microsoft that stopped to invest in many end-user technologies. MS could turn into a cloud-only company, but how clever that idea would be, letting others control the access to that cloud, on their own terms?"

Works pretty well for Amazon, don't you think?

[Fred Daggy]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

Not just bundling, it was one of the first tech to expoit the lax permissions on the user profile folders in Windows, other than viruses. Even if the user was not administrator, Chrome (and other Google Software) installed by using the users profile folders.

Tsk, Tsk. Maybe they are not administrators for a reason?

[simonlb]

Re: What's wrong at Redmond?

"People didn't want Windows Phone"

At the time, Windows Phone was far, far better to both navigate and use than Android, and the majority of people I have spoken with who had tried and/or used it tended to agree. It was very intuitive to use, ran pretty quick on the hardware and had a much more customisable user interface. There were also quite a few usability features in the OS that Andriod and iOS didn't have, but that have since been included in newer versions. However, the complete lack of apps in the store was a real pain, and some apps (Facebook for one) were very basic and had very limited functionality compared to the Android and iOS versions. I was sad to see Windows Phone go, but Android these days is vastly improved over what it was a decade ago, although it still has some annoyances.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's Wrong at Redmond?

Relentless pursuit of removing money from users for a product that gets crappier with every iteration.

The relentless push for AI is just another "ooo look a killer feature that we can sell to customers".

Basically screwing users over for minimum cost and effort on the part of M$$$$$$.

As a business customer I just want an OS that runs the machine efficiently and doesn't get in the way.

Don't want adverts on my desktop, don't want AI, don't want a M$ account to activate my OS.

And this, boys and girls is exactly why I've migrated 95% of my work to Linux in the past 3 years.

Other than when clients send me .docx files that LibreOffice might not display properly I don't need Windows at all.

[The Oncoming Scorn]

Re: What's Wrong at Redmond?

How long a list would you like!

[xyz123]

SadBoy Nutella actually announced "we are no longer an operating system company, we are an AI company"

They fired their entire QA department, started using AI-generated patches. THEN they let the AI check it's own homework.

To top it off, they're STILL planning to remove the ability for Enterprise customers to block 'some' Windows Updates...which will be forced into it, with no group policy or registry setting to prevent it.

They're deliberately KILLING windows for consumers as well...and as a side-effect they're the same consumers who recommend stuff for work. No-one wants to learn TWO OSs....so they recommend for the next cycle of refresh to switch to Linux.

Its why almost every government (we're talking over 25MILLION machines) in the EU is switching to Linux before 2027 etc. Even Linux itself has gained over 10million home users this year.

[degraded RAID]

EU is NOT switching to Linux before 2027. Some organizations in some countries are.

[billdehaan]

Not the user base you're looking for

In the 1980s and 1990s, Windows, and later Windows with Office, was 85% of Microsoft's revenues.

Today, it's closer to 15%. The money is in Azure, cloud services, and subscription revenues.

The $35 Microsoft gets from a user for a site licence copy of Windows on his computer pales compared to the revenue they get for him subscribing to Office 365, or OneDrive, and any of the corporate cloud services.

The home user isn't the revenue driver for Microsoft any more, it's the corporate desktop. And the corporate desktop is largely insulated from the garbage that affects home users. Corporate users don't do their own updates, the IT department does, and that's after they're tested. Corporate PCs don't get Candy Crush and other nonsense, they can remove it. They don't need Outlook accounts. They do suffer the CoPilot nonsense, but even some of that can be mitigated.

Microsoft didn't decide to fix Windows because they care. They decided to do it because PC vendors (Asus, Lenovo, and others) have had so much negative feedback from users that they have stopped making Windows a default component for their PCs now, and downgraded them to an optional one, allowing users to buy OS-free computers, or ones with Linux installed.

That made the Microsoft accountants take notice. And they asked questions that senior management couldn't answer, or didn't want to. And that's why there's a PR push to fix Windows, after years of denials that there was any problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Not the user base you're looking for

Windows still runs on far more non-company desktops than Linux (and Apple) - people do use Windows applications for their own interests too. They might till buy an Office subsscription, and anyway they get used to Windows which may become their choice at the workplace too, when they are in a position to decide.

It's just like Google with Android - it won't make money from the OS, but its real business is built on people using Android to access Google's service and pay with their data - even when they are not company users.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Isn't it obvious?

They kept the management, laid off or early-retired the developers who actually knew anything about the systems, and turned it all over to a bunch of prompt kiddies with an LLM hosing it all. (No, I did not misspell "hosting.")

They should have replaced management with the LLMs. It's easy to simulate their mentality; it's a relatively brainless formula: "If profit-this-quarter > profit-last-quarter then keep-doing-same-thing else lay-off-staff-as-cost-cutting-exercise."

Let's face it: what is Satya except a walking spreadsheet and mouthpiece? Easy peasy for an LLM!

[Wmbt]

Doctor O

Pretty much the definition of enshittification.

Unfortunately when it comes to major cloud services the options are not great.

Although, Linux FTW

[aardvarkus]

The fish rots from the head. And Microsoft is a very smelly fish these days.

[sarusa]

They're lying again

> but it wants to do better

No it does not. It wants to say 'we will do better!1' every couple months and do the rounds swearing to do better, but it's always a lie.

As long as Slopya is in charge and they're AI Uber Alles, things are guaranteed to just keep getting shittier. It's no coincidence at all that the long downhill slide of Windows 11, Github, Azure (okay, it was pretty downhill to start with) coincides with the appearance of vibe coding.

It's the equivalent of 'I'm going to get sober, but I'm not going to stop drinking booze all day long.' Then they make all these sobriety pledges and send out long emails about how they have gotten the message that customers don't like the code they write while completely blotto, so now we're going to do all our coding sober. While still drinking heavily. Trust us! And then you get these podcasts wondering if Microslop can code sober while still drinking heavily.

Stop being so damn gullible about their obvious PR lies. Until they pledge to cut back on AI - and actually DO SO - there is no getting better. Though at this point they've probably gotten rid of all the people who actually know how to engineer code. They've certainly gotten rid of all the institutional knowledge.

[jake]

Re: They're lying again

"coincides with the appearance of vibe coding."

Peak Microsoft was 26 years ago, with Win2K. It's all been downhill since then.

Jive coding is barely a year old, and couldn't have figured into Microsoft's slide until then.

[sarusa]

Re: They're lying again

As bad as it was before (everyone has a high point), it has gotten noticeably worse since Windows 11 hit and everyone I know agrees with that. Even my Mom, who has no idea what an OS is or that she's using one, loudly wonders why her computer has gotten so much worse. Every single update is now a cavalcade of mal-'features' and system breaking bugs.

I was pretty happy with Windows 10, it mostly just got the job done. My Windows 10 boxes are still going great, no problems, the OS is just an OS and stays out of my way (okay, Microslop has ported some malware from Windows 11 back to Windows 10, but of course that was after Windows 11 happened). Windows 11 has made itself an active pain point with every update, which is absolutely not what you want from an OS.

[simonlb]

Re: They're lying again

"They've certainly gotten rid of all the institutional knowledge."

Is that a bad thing? I have always maintained that the whole design of Windows is badly flawed and should be rewritten from the ground up: Why else would updating a driver for a printer or an input device mandate a full reboot of the system? Why do so many 'updates' or making a change via 'Add or Remove Features' also require a full restart? I'm not a software engineer but there are so many basic things in Windows - over all versions - which have always been just wrong right from the start and never should have been. If an OS's job is to get out of your way and just let you work, then why have so many millions of hours each year for past two decades been wasted while that OS is 'updating' and then rebooting unnecessarily? I'm convinced that if MS wanted to, they could have fixed these basic issues whilst maintaining backward compatibility, but like all corporate entities they chose the 'easier' way which was to keep on fudging things when they could have been actually fixing them. It won't be quick or necessarily easy, but not being held back by "that's always how it's been done" might just be what they need. That and having a proper QA team. And less AI. Unless they really no longer think making an OS is a worthwhile business activity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: They're lying again

Dave Cutler knew a thing or two - and actually the design of Windows is far better and more modern than *nix.

Today even updating the graphic driver doesn't require a reboot. Reboot are needed when files are in use and the process using them can't be stopped or the driver unloaded. Windows has even new APIs to reduce reboots - look at the Restart Manager API - if developers take the easy path and just the user to reboot is another issue.

"Add/remove features" can sometime change kernel files - i.e. enabling Hyper-V.

[Tim Roberts 1]

I sometimes wonder if MS reads comments like the ones above and thinks "maybe we can do better"

OR:

- stfu you bunch of whining a holes.

- we're the best and we know it

- we could do better but hey stuff it

- we have the dominant market share so don't need to do anything

etc, etc

[NavionMI]

"We're the best" usually translates to "Look how much our stock is worth right now and how much money we have." This whole convo would have been better if it were held with regular Windows users, whether forced into it or not. When the one guy says it took him 9 hours to update his Windows machine, I had to wonder what kind of crappy internet connection he had. 14.4 dial-up?

[Blackjack]

I haven't used Windows 10 or 11 and I do not want to .

Never in a million years I imagined that Windows would self destruct like this and watching from outside it is darkly humorous.

[NavionMI]

Wah wah wah....

So a bunch of professed non-Windows users sit around a bitch about Microslop without providing any kind of clarity on the issues they bring up, and not having anyone from Microsloth there to be pilloried for their misdeeds. Well, thanks guys, you just made the time I spend watching cat videos at work seem so much more productive.

[John Vickers]

"When it comes to making decisions that piss off your user base, no one knows how to do it like Microsoft."

Broadcom's treatment of VMware customers has to be serious competition.