[av3csr]

One thing I greatly dislike about the settings app is the fact we can only have one section opened at once. If you are debugging, say Bluetooth and sound issues, the setting app can only exclusively show either Bluetooth or Sound, not both, (AFAIK) you can't open a second instance of the app.

[cmehdy]

One at a time, low text density, advanced settings obfuscated at best and removed at worst, quick shortcuts (cpl and such) won't exist anymore. The settings are a fantastic way to solve absolutely nothing by clicking on very large buttons.

[thisislife2]

I was complaining about the same thing yesterday (to nobody) about the macOS System Preferences - it is irritating that when you are working on the Network Panel and want to fiddle with some other system option, you can't open two different panels in System Preferences at the same time. Isn't it the same with Linux distros too now a days who are imitating Windows and macOS UI?

[pvtmert]

you can open multiple of those via the 'open' command

    open -a 'system settings' -n

> https://ss64.com/mac/open.html

[thisislife2]

Thanks for the tip ( open -a 'system preferences' -n worked for me ). Though, it's still irritating when you have to switch to command line to do so ...

[cqqxo4zV46cp]

You’re inviting a billion replies about how on Linux you have the absolute freedom to install any of a number of inscrutably hard to use, abandoned, system configuration utilities, or edit some equally inscrutable file written in one greybeard’s esoteric pet project configuration DSL.

[cholantesh]

Or, you know, use standard tools available across distros like lspci, ip, df, and ps, among others.

[mrandish]

Agreed, and more generally, MSFT removing these 'classic' control panels is a significant issue because the new replacements often don't replace the full functionality of the originals.

This isn't simply that he new replacement isn't "finished" yet (which was sometimes claimed in the past when power users complained). In recent years, the reason seems to be the old canard "not enough users use (capability) often enough." However, in the case of Windows control panels, this is reasoning can be invalid because control panels were many times explicitly for advanced users to adjust advanced OS behaviors.

This would be okay if MSFT was creating the new "Settings" paradigm to be an additional kind of basic adjustments-only UI for entry-level users. However, what's actually happening is they're completely removing the old control panel while simultaneously nerfing the Settings replacement, leaving more advanced users hunting through the registry to find a way to control behaviors they've been able to control via interface in Windows for decades.

[winternett]

For ages now Microsoft has been hiding and over-complicating config management on their OS'es. It should be an issue cited by legal authorities. Task manager for example could clearly highlight processes that are part of the original OS, just to distinguish them from 3rd party apps as an easy indicator of system security. The explorer functionality & file display changes with each folder you open, there is no clear path to system TMP files to clear them, and even in many of their apps, you need to learn an entirely different set of hotkeys just to have an efficient workflow.

I don't know why the company obfuscates and complicates operation of it's OS, but so many others including Android & IoS create ridiculously tiered configuration menus to the point where users get so frustrated with every update that I'm sure most just leave default (nefarious) settings as is.

Part of me thinks config complexity will be baked in to keep certification course money rolling in for the company, but with each mandatory "security" update, we're still getting hacked, because configuring our settings now is just too damn tedious.

Microsoft really hinders other innovation on top of not really innovating itself (as a company) by overcomplicating settings and by adding bloatware & monitorware to it's OS... This is also why there's a desperate fight to cling to older OS versions with every new release. The imposed update learning curve is counter-productive, it doesn't make anything better, and it's mostly the end result of us tolerating monopoly behaviors of the company for ages now.

There should be regulation against forcing updates on us, there should also be regulation against arbitrarily removing features post-release in software that we purchased... As we move further and further away from hardware tools, this practice of tiered control and arbitrary feature removal will become a nightmare of predatory corporate greed upon all of us. Imagine buying a lawn mower, and then 2 years later, you find you need to watch ads on it before you can start it, or that you'll have to pay a monthly fee to cut your grass shorter than usual? Pure Hell.