[mapontosevenths]

You can't pin a folder to the start menu and have it list the items in the folder as you could since XP.

The right click menu in explorer is oversimplified garbage that's missing most of the important options without an extra, unnecessary click.

The settings systems still aren't unified, meaning you have to check AT LEAST two places before you find the right settings menu half the time. Sometimes 3.

It takes double the memory it should for something so simple.

Windows explorer in task manager still needs to have the special "restart task" option, specifically because they know it's going to crash a high percentage of the time you use it.

It spies on you with over-intrusive telemetry.

It advertises to you, even though you are (ostensibly) the customer.

It tries to force the Microsoft account.

It tries to force OneDrive.

It tries to force Edge.

Every update resets half my settings that I spent hours configuring.

The updates are often forced on you. I'm not a child. Let ME decide my risk appetite.

It forces their crummy AI into EVERYTHING, and makes you opt out if you don't want all your data hoovered up.

Everything is named poorly and confusingly on purpose. How many damned things are named "Copilot" now? What is Office even called these days?

[p_ing]

> The right click menu in explorer is oversimplified garbage that's missing most of the important options without an extra, unnecessary click.

3rd party extensions were causing it to load slowly.

> It takes double the memory it should for something so simple.

How are you measuring this? How do you specifically know how much memory it should take?

> Windows explorer in task manager still needs to have the special "restart task" option

It's even more convenient in macOS. It's right on the permanently pinned Finder icon in the Dock!

[mapontosevenths]

> 3rd party extensions were causing it to load slowly.

Yep, and I liked it that way. I had piles of right click extensions that I used every day, and if one made it slow I uninstalled it.

Windows is a tool, it shouldn't be any more prescriptive than a hammer. *

> How are you measuring this? How do you specifically know how much memory it should take?

Windows 7 required 1Gb of ram. Windows 11 requires 4Gb (and is unusable with only 4 - windows 7 actually ran with reasonable speed with 1Gb). Windows 11 does NOT offer 4 times the utility or security, it just offers unwanted services.

> It's even more convenient in macOS. It's right on the permanently pinned Finder icon in the Dock!

That made me laugh out loud. Still, if my work crashed and I suggested to the boss that I build a special "restart" button into the menu rather than fixing it I would need to work on my resume urgently.

*EDIT* - Had they made it optional I wouldn't be complaining. Instead you have to use registry hacks to get it back.

I'm not frustrated that things changed, I'm frustrated that it has less functionality than it did before and is more expensive in terms of compute. It does less, but costs more.

[p_ing]

> I'm frustrated that it has less functionality than it did before

How can anyone claim that's true? It does a lot _more_ than Windows 7 did. It has Defender as a full built-in suite. It has VBS. It has a completely different scheduler. It supports the App model. It has a mature virtualization framework. It has ReFS (and the ability to disable file system filters!).

...On and on and on. Windows 11 isn't a 7 with a bit of new GUI paint.

I mean, why stop at your Windows 7 v. 11 complaint? Windows 3.11 only required kilobytes of RAM and ran great; NT was the hefty one with a 12MB minimum! But each one ran Notepad, had Word, NT4 had a couple browsers, etc.

Generally commercial OSes don't take away major bits of impactful functionality that are going to magically minimize their footprint.

[mapontosevenths]

All fair points, and I AM being hypercritical here just due to the context of my comment. If I were to be as critical of any other OS I'm sure I could write an equally long list, and at the end of the day I only bothered to write the comment because I LIKE Windows and wish it wasn't getting worse over time.

Still, I would argue that almost all of the new features you mention are architectural things that advantage the enterprises, not the individual user. Some are even locked to pro/enterprise users behind licensing. Even for those lucky enough to work within those enterprises, it's not the end user who is advantaged. From their perspective Windows does nothing new, it's just slower and provides a worse user experience.

Further, several of those "features" exist only because Windows is still crippled by preserving backwards compatibility, and therefore is saddled with a legacy security model they're forced to continue trying to bolt solutions onto. The cybersecurity situation becoming so bad that the OS needs to ship with an EDR isn't a benefit to anyone.

It's like trying to turn a canvas tent into a bank vault. You can never do a great job of it and throwing in the padlock for free because congress would shut you down if you didn't do SOMETHING isn't a "feature". Worse, the padlock doesn't actually stop intruders, it just inconveniences legitimate users.

[olyjohn]

Way to pick and choose your points to argue.

[p_ing]

Feel free to pick and choose the rest.