[dangus]

Under that logic I'd still be using my Macintosh Classic.

I see this the other way around: Microsoft released enhancements and security patches for $0, and my computer can run the software.

What could possibly be the point of not changing my software where a new version that does more things is available for free?

Imagine a car manufacturer offering to give you a new car and take you old one with no significant catch and saying no. Why would I do that?

Resistance of change for resistance of change's sake alone is something that is a major pet peeve for me. It represents a negative personality trait in my mind. In my opinion, the day I refuse to use something solely because it's new, different, or scary is the day I've turned into an old grump.

[bambax]

Change isn't friction free, and therefore it isn't "free" except if you count your time for nothing. It takes weeks or months to reinstall things that work fine as they are.

I love new things that are actually new and that bring a clear benefit; Windows 10 isn't "new", it's the same thing with the UI arranged in a slightly different way for no reason.

A computer is like a hammer. When you're used to one, and you suddenly decide to use another one, it takes time to feel its proper balance and use it with the same efficiency as the previous one. You can have two hammers that you use regularly; but changing hammers every year just because there's a new one with a handle in a different color is absurd IMHO.

[dangus]

That comment just shows me you haven't used Windows 10, nor have you used Windows 11. I mean, you're still talking about Windows 10 like it's a new thing. That OS came out 7 years ago!

The feature/enhancement list of Windows 10 and its constant iterative updates and now Windows 11 is probably hundreds of items. How am I supposed to communicate to you that it's more than just a new UI when an operating system is made up of so many different pieces?

It's hard to "win" against arguments like this because your side of the argument amounts to "I haven't seen it but I assume it has to be basically the same" or "from the screenshots I can see it's a new UI and it's basically just Windows."

Here's one: Does Windows 7 have any low-level optimization for big little architecture in Intel's new chips? https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-and-intel-confirm-wind...

To win this argument I'd have to come up with some big feature list and hope there are a few that resonate with you, but you can easily dismiss it as "I don't need that."

No, it didn't take me weeks or months to upgrade from Windows 10 to 11. I clicked a button and I walked away. The computer updates itself. Automatically, at night, when I'm asleep.

I upgraded to Windows 11 relatively early and nothing broke. No workflow was disrupted. Windows' backwards compatibility is legendary.

You're looking at this like upgrading isn't worth the lift, but that's backwards. Upgrading is so easy and just gives you more stuff with basically no downside (and Microsoft fixes big complaints about new releases quickly these days because they take feedback and release continuously – they have a whole app just for providing feedback).

[bambax]

I don't want to "win". I'm happy if you are. While I have never used Win11, I have two laptops running Win10 and seldom use them because they're the same, only different (and they apparently won't run Office 2003, which is the last version before that stupid "ribbon" interface that's annoying to no end).

But it's funny the one bug feature you mention is "low level optimization for Intel new chips". So indeed, it's not just a software thing: in order to fully appreciate the greatness of that new OS I would have to buy a new CPU (not free) and all that comes with it.

I don't see the need to do that, but if you want to do it please do! But why does it upset you if others don't want to upgrade, and why would you label them luddites and grumpy old farts, is my question.

Can't we agree to disagree?