[tomesch1982]

Microsoft became miserably incompetent in IT in the 1980s. I'm saying this for decades now: If there is one thing that Microsoft is realy bad at then it's software. Almost every piece of software they produce is worse than the alternatives.

[y42]

What company is not incompetent in IT?

IT is not flawless. Because it's operated by people. I don't know any software company that offers bugfree software with a superb support and an innovative development roadmap.

Every company is, to a certain level, incompetent in IT. Because there is no perfect competency. The bigger the company, the more prominent this incompetency grows. Which misleads to a confirmation or selection biassed opinion, that this specific company is incompetent.

Take that small startup team that just developed a proof-of-concept, minor bugs as usual, small code-base, collecting 100 Mio. venture capital. Next year they grow to 10.000 employees and 100 Mio. customers. What also grows, inevitable, the code base and amount of bugs. At what state and why would you call them "incompetent in IT"?

[Tade0]

I wanted to snarkily ask "became?".

I recall how the very first edition of Win XP needed time to "cool off" after startup for a minute or two, otherwise it would be wildly unstable. Service Pack 2 resolved most of those issues, but the fact it was needed at all is already telling.

Similarly Windows 11 had regressions in the weirdest of places, like for instance volume controls.

Microsoft has a legacy of bad software.