I agree with you, I often find I like Microsoft's services and subsidiary products (those you listed).
I also use the crap out of Excel.
But he's right Windows is taking a dive. And other Microsoft products. Example number 1: Excel has these cheesy glide animations that do nothing but slow down imports.
I export a report from quickbooks to excel and if it's a large one it almost feels like Excel will crash just from processing so many animations.
I tried turning it off, but it's not as easy as it looks.
My wife just spent several hours making a Word document, then it refused to save ... It didn't even say why it couldn't save. She is a long time Windows and Word/Office user, and pretty good with computers. But she is starting to hate technology more and more.
I don't use github or linkedin. I don't use skype either... because Microsoft ruined it and everybody left (for business now I use Hangouts and for gaming now I use Discord).
Everyone I know quit using Skype too.. it's tough to have this argument without access to expensive market research reports, though
More anecdotally, the only time I used Skype in the last few years was when I had a remote job interview with LINE. (Ironically, LINE's core product is a Skype competitor, and they refused to use it for the interview even though I said I'd rather stick with LINE and not install Skype. If that isn't a red flag, I don't know what is, haha)
How are they ruining Windows? People have been saying this since XP (before SP1 or SP2, when everyone hated it.) Yet there's not much evidence to support it...they are actually doing some really cool things with Windows now like adding bash and having different flavor Linux subsystems. The main issue I've had is some lack of quality control since they let go tons of testers and used Insiders instead. That has not effected me personally, but it has become a public perception they need to clean up.
Windows is subject to this sort of bizarre conservation of awesome. Any improvements in one area must be counterbalanced with an absolute shitshow in some other area. Windows 95 brought full 32-bit-ness to the average desktop, but it was a crashy buggy mess based on DOS that should have never existed because Windows NT was a thing. Windows 98 improved on Windows 95 in some ways, but introduced completely unnecessary IE integration and the Active Desktop nobody used. Windows XP finally brought the NT kernel to the consumer desktop, but it looked like Fisher-Price and introduced phone-home DRM integrated at a system level. Windows 7 seems immune to this rule, being a massive improvement over Vista and XP with few drawbacks, but was bookended by pure-shitshow releases Vista and 8. Windows 10 fixed many of the problems with Windows 8, and gave us nice things like WSL, but also gave us built-in spyware and ads-in-the-start-menu malarkey.
There's a reason why people say 2000 and 7 were the best Windows releases ever.
A lot of those things you've cited are very nearly myths.
Windows 7's adoption of online-only functionality dwarfs XP's.
Vista and Windows 7 are extremely similar. I've easily fooled several Windows 7 die-hards that they were using Windows 7 while they were in-fact using Windows Vista. They are virtually the same operating system. Microsoft did the same in a series of television commercials.
Spyware and application telemetry are not the same thing. I don't know why I continue to beat this drum, though, it never sways anyone, facts be damned.
The suggestions (yes, they are arguably ads) are easily turned off and never return, and this setting syncs across devices logged into the same Microsoft account.
No operating system is perfect, and no company is perfect. Is there any other fucking massive tech company in the middle of a huge turnaround like Microsoft is? I can't think of any.
Yet, many people will always have a very special place in their heart for attacking Microsoft, and they'll never relent, no matter what Microsoft do.
> Windows 95 ... should have never existed because... NT was a thing.
Windows NT needed way high-end hardware to be usable at the time. (Even Linux did, if you wanted to use a Win95-like GUI and not be limited to the text-only CLI.) Windows 95 was a hack, but it was still miles better than pure MS-DOG and 16-bit versions of Windows.
> Windows 98 ...introduced completely unnecessary IE integration and the Active Desktop nobody used.
Completely unnecessary? Used ChromeOS lately? Guess what, that integrates the web browser at a far deeper level than Win98 ever did. And Active Desktop-equivalent technologies are only coming back into use very recently, with things like Web Notifications, ActivityPub, Progressive Web Apps and the like.
> Windows XP ... looked like Fisher-Price ...
Except that you could disable the Fisher Price bits, either in XP or as late as Vista and Windows 7.
> Guess what, that integrates the web browser at a far deeper level than Win98 ever did.
That's the entire point; it uses the web browser because the web browser became an operating system (in the "application platform" sense of the word, not in the "kernel" sense) in its own right, and ChromeOS is Google's attempt to follow it to its conclusion. This is categorically different than Windows' deep and arbitrary integration of Explorer.
> This is categorically different than Windows' deep and arbitrary integration of Explorer.
Nope, Internet Explorer had its own "application platform" for the browser at the time, known as ActiveX. Of course ActiveX came with huge security drawbacks, not unlike Windows 9x itself, but OTOH it was somewhat usable compared to the security-oriented Java "applets". And ActiveX components did find some use in Windows 98, much like the web-based components in ChromeOS.
I'm not the one you're asking. But to me, the (most recent) way they ruined Windows was the new interface. I don't want to interact with my desktop via a phone/tablet interface. I don't want to use a touchscreen. I want to use only the keyboard and mouse.
More: I don't want to use my computer as a media consumption device.
So for me, all the new UI changes are counterproductive. But that's me. Others have different usage profiles; whether it's a net win or a net loss depends on the customer mix.
I can’t thing of anything useful that MS added since Windows XP.
Going from 16 bit cooperative to 32 bit preemptive in the 3.x to 9x change, useful.
Going to multiple accounts with permissions in the 9x to XP change, useful.
Rearranging the UI time and again since Vista, and sucking up CPUs with scannning processes, so what?
Note that I really only used Windows at work, anyway (instead of Linux, or more recently OSX), and I managed to avoid the post-7 cluster-bomb entirely at my current job.
I'm on 10. I still hate the interface. Yes, it's better than 8 was, but that's not much. They took a step in the wrong direction, and then they took a half-step back. I mean, that's better than nothing, but it's still less than good.
I agree with you generally but it's not just the tiles. They also made a lot of changes around how settings and other features are accessed to make them more touch friendly, and if you're just trying to get in and change a thing it's often more work to get to it. There are ways to work around almost all of it but its just sort of ongoing evidence of a design direction that didn't really pan out for the mobile users it was intended to serve, and makes life a little harder for technical desktop users. These days I only use Windows 10 for gaming and to host my ubuntu laptop over VNC. If it weren't for games/steam I'd probably uninstall it.
Considering Microsoft is likely killing live tiles and there isn't much of a touch interface at all, I don't understand your problem. Are you talking about Windows 8? I genuinely don't know exactly what you mean at all.
The heavy-handed updates forcing frequent reboots are the deal-breaker for me. It seriously pisses me off to come back to my machine only discover that all those editor windows I had open gone, the IDE close, and all the open browser tabs lost, etc. Why are frequent full reboots even necessary in this day and age?!
This ridiculously idiotic notion of "security" needs to stop. Especially when "fixing" things that already require full admin access anyway. True remote exploits are (fortunately) very rare, and even then there should never be a need to reboot --- patching files in memory was perfected years ago.
Give the users freedom to choose when to reboot, and even to choose whether they want to. Some users will continue to manage to get infected with malware despite constantly being disrupted by the constant reboots, others never installed a single security patch and yet would never be infected due to what they do (or what they don't, to be more accurate.) But that's their choice and theirs alone.
Unfortunately it seems companies are far more authoritarian and would rather breed a docile obedient type of users in which to force their ideas on and control.
I will resist the urge to post that old Benjamin Franklin quote again.
Well when someone's Windows computer gets infected, that person rarely blames themselves. They blame Microsoft.
I'll take the updates and reboots. I don't know what exploits are coming tomorrow, and I know very little about the ones currently in the wild. My SSD allows reboots carrying updates to happen in just a minute or two.
I will do my due diligence and protect myself.
If you don't want to, don't use Windows, then you won't have anything Windows-related to complain about.
> Unfortunately it seems companies are far more authoritarian and would rather breed a docile obedient type of users in which to force their ideas on and control.
You are on drugs or are otherwise compromised logically. Tech companies are nowhere nearly as organized as would be required to make this a reality.
You're saying that the manufacturer of an OS that requires reboots for certain fixes to be patched onto the operating system is actually an authoritarian regime grooming its users toward a manufactured Idiocracy?
I'll have whatever you're having. It sounds like LSD but only for geopolitical concerns.
I agree with the gp that consecutive full reboots definitely shouldn't be necessary. That Windows forces your hand on when to reboot just worsens the case.
The state of Windows update is terrible to me. Say what you will about Linux, but updating on most distros is a breeze compared to Windows.
There are for sure features that I disagree with in Win10 like telemetry and automatic reboots while I'm using the computer (which has been resolved), but it's a far stretch to say they're ruining windows. I don't think I've ever had a full crash on my current Win10 box that I use daily. Driver issues are almost nonexistent. It does everything I need it to without issue. I'm not sure what else I would want from an OS.
How about not having spyware? I don't think we should use the word "telemetry" when we do actually mean spyware. Telemetry, in connotation, is data used for diagnostic, maintenance, and 'real' quality assurance. I opt-in to various forms of telemetry for a number of different pieces of software I use. I'm happy to help other developers create a better product. What Microsoft is doing goes far above any reasonable notion of telemetry alone.
Disable all telemetry options so much as you can. And then setup a sniffer, run Wireshark, etc on your traffic. Windows 10 is a disaster. It is constantly phoning back home, through a wide array of different addresses, sending back unknown data to Microsoft. It's safe to assume that, at the minimum, they're building extensive profiles on users which, in the most benign case, will be used to facilitate targeted advertising and messaging.
Aside from that there are also technical issues with the OS such as treating production deployment as sending out code seemingly just after it passes the 'it compiled' standard of quality assurance. An update for Windows 10 in April of last year was one of several that has resulted in bricking numerous machines. Another update a few months back was deleting files on users machines resulting in Microsoft having to roll back the update, and so on.
Not only is this itself all completely unacceptable, but I think it also reflects the new direction of the company. Even if you might be willing to tolerate their actions, and failures, today I think this reflects a new Microsoft. Put another way I think these issues are likely to become more substantial, and not less, as time progresses.
---
As an aside, I say this all as a Windows 'enthusiast.' My 'native' environment is Visual Studio working in .NET, C# in particular. I've also been using Windows since 3.1, but Windows 10 is simply unacceptable to me as an operating system. I'm still happily running Windows 7, which also has no issues with stability/drivers. The day Microsoft decides to try to make Visual Studio Windows 10 only is the day my Ubuntu partition gets bumped to the top of the boot order.
So yeah, at least from my perspective, Windows under Nadella has indeed been destroyed.
We don't know what data Microsoft is sending back but for whatever reason we've somehow concluded it must be incredibly invasive to the point where it's spyware?
If you are that concern with security. Use an air gaped device or don't even use electronic storage at all.
Or better yet just purchase Windows 10 Enterprise and turn all Telemetry off - which is entirely supported.
They don't make a secret of this. Here [1] are their terms of service as it relates to privacy. They add a substantial amount of fluff that has no effective meaning in the terms. For instance one of the most overt example of this is in this statement,
"We share your personal data with your consent or to complete any transaction or provide any product you have requested or authorized. We also share data with Microsoft-controlled affiliates and subsidiaries; with vendors working on our behalf."
They lead with consent as if it means something, but it is part of an "OR" clause. That means that they are listing consent as but one example of scenarios where they will share your data. It's tautological fluff. This clause can be accurately stated as, "We share your personal data with Microsoft-controlled affiliates and subsidiaries, and with vendors." Here are the entire terms with the unrestrained fluff removed:
"Microsoft collects data from you, through our interactions with you and through our products. You provide some of this data directly, and we get some of it by collecting data about your interactions, use, and experiences with our products. We also obtain data about you from third parties.
We use data to personalize our products and make recommendations, advertise and market to you, which includes sending promotional communications, targeting advertising, and presenting you with relevant offers. We combine data we collect from different contexts (for example, from your use of two Microsoft products) or obtain from third parties to make informed business decisions.
We share your personal data with Microsoft-controlled affiliates and subsidiaries and with vendors working on our behalf. Your ability to access or control your personal data will be limited, as permitted by applicable law."
I've removed fluff but in no way changed what was stated or removed it from context (aside from non-meaningful fluff). What is said above is literally in the terms you agree to with Windows. This is the reason that in times past if you wanted to upgrade from e.g. Windows 98 to Windows XP, that you went out and spent a hundred bucks on an upgrade key. Yet to not 'upgrade' from Windows 7 to Windows 10 for 'free' you had to aggressively fight off Microsoft who made every effort to force you to 'upgrade.' It's because the operating system is spyware and thus profit is generated primarily not by sales, but by harvesting and exploiting data on the people using it.
In times past Microsoft had a strong monopoly on the software market. Now a days every product I use and game I run, besides Visual Studio, is supported natively or through WINE/Proton on Linux. Creating some false dichotomy of 'don't user computers or the internet' or 'use windows' is just weird, especially on a site like this. Windows no longer has a monopoly. But I do think Visual Studio is a really great product, and so I'm happy enough to continue using Windows 7 with the spyware 'updates' disabled. But the moment that they decide to try to spin that product onto Windows 10 (which I suspect may happen with Visual Studio 2020) - then I lose my final tether to this ecosystem.
I have an annoying recurring bug in explorer.exe where, when playing full-screen media, the task bar is shown, obscuring the bottom of the content. I have a batch file on my desktop to kill/start explorer.exe it happens so often. That type of issue never happened in Windows 7/XP.
Seconded. Back when Windows merely had the occasional bug, it was still a worthwhile tool for me.
Now that it has mandatory telemetry and unavoidable updates (at least for non-enterprise users), the value proposition has gone into negative territory.
I'm sure Microsoft has their reasons for doing this, but unfortunately it's clear that our goals are too misaligned.
I don’t think Windows 10 is worse than its predecessors, but the start menu being full of advertisements and crapware on a fresh install is pretty shameless (especially after I’ve spent $200 on it)
I've seen a lot of "Windows ruined" stuff, articles and such, but they always seem like issues that were always there about patching issues and such... or even just stuff that isn't an issue anymore.
I swear I see a lot of complaints but the things people cite seem like nothing new or ultra minor stuff that you could have cited all through Windows history.
I still have a Windows around for running Visual Studio and it seems the next iteration is resolute about making the GUI worst again (previous successful attempt at it was VS 2012).
You might also rely on sites that are built with Microsoft technologies (Stack overflow for example) or find that your workplace gets by with Excel.
It's hard to say you don't use their technologies.