[askonomm]

Pretty sure it's just that Windows is horribly broken, privacy-invading, ad-ridden malware disguised as an operating system. I swear it seems like nobody at Microsoft not even once have asked the actual users for what they would like to see in the OS.

[mancerayder]

The video takes this one step further, and it has nothing to do with being 'out of touch' or something. The speaker is arguing there is a macro trend of pushing us towards agentic interactions instead of the UI components we're used to. Then it can track, tune and control everything we do, thanks to all the telemetry back and forth.

I wish people would engage with the content a bit. It's a huge claim (and scary).

[swed420]

> The speaker is arguing there is a macro trend of pushing us towards agentic interactions instead of the UI components we're used to.

This trend is not even limited to Windows.

We saw it begin years ago with Google etc gradually reducing the quality of search results. Then ChatGPT etc arrive shortly thereafter, and people are led to conclude "it works so much better than traditional search." Hard to believe these two events are unrelated.

[rurp]

I don't know, I think a simpler explanation for Google's behavior is that monopolies act like monopolies. Combating spam and SEO junk is hard and expensive. Once they became synonymous with web search for most people they gradually cared less and less about product quality. If people will keep using the product no matter how bad the results get and how many ads get jammed in it's hard for a corporation like that to care.

[swed420]

Possibly, but it makes more sense when viewed through the lens of "Google is an advertising company" rather than a search company.

Also, it's not like Google went on autopilot and pursued nothing in recent years. Clearly they've dedicated resources to AI, so it's not hard to believe they foresaw potential resistance to selling the concept of AI to users and took measures to funnel them into the behavior Google desired, all the while making it appear as a choice the user was making.

Google famously solved the search problem and the spam problem, and technology has only gotten more capable since then. Suggesting that blogspam etc are too difficult to defeat is a tough sell imo.

[dpark]

> it's not hard to believe they foresaw potential resistance to selling the concept of AI to users and took measures to funnel them into the behavior Google desired

I find that very hard to believe because it implies a level of foresight that we have not observed from Google. The notion that they degraded their own search on purpose for years to funnel people to AI seems very implausible, especially since they don’t have a good model yet for replacing that ad revenue within AI, and that level of foresight would also imply that they should have beaten OpenAI to the punch instead of reacting to ChatGPT.

[swed420]

> especially since they don’t have a good model yet for replacing that ad revenue within AI

This would be a calculated financial bet on their part. This kind of risk taking is not limited to SV startups.

I realize companies under late stage capitalism aren't typically known for having foresight past one quarter, but that doesn't mean some of them can't have somebody optimizing for the long-term in a financial sense.

It's seems premature to rule this possibility out entirely.

[hulitu]

> that monopolies act like monopolies

duckduckgo is also serving crap from some time, so no, it is not about monopolies.

[expedition32]

Seeing people use chatGPT to write words they themselves don't even understand is terrifying.

[jinushaun]

No, Windows was broken before AI

[rbanffy]

Microsoft has a handful big clients - Dell, Lenovo, HP being the top three. They are the ones that make Windows be the default operating system on everyone's computers and they need to be happy, not the person who buys the computer. When the computer becomes unusable, they'll just get another from the same brands and everyone, except the user, are happy.

Corporations don't run Windows. They run Outlook, Excel, and Teams. Windows and generic PCs (or thin clients and VDIs) is just the cheapest way to achieve that goal.

[orev]

Corpos definitely run Windows. There are many highly technical people and advanced software that need Windows. Not every company employee is just a pencil pusher or bean counter.

This myopia in tech is so baffling to me. Windows has been around over 40 years and tech people still act like it will go away “any day now” just because they don’t like it.

[rbanffy]

Corporations will continue using Windows the same way they'll continue using mainframes (at least mainframes are interesting machines). If Dell, HP and Lenovo decide tomorrow to ship all laptops with Fedora by default, very few people will install Windows. Or notice it's a different OS. They'll just think that Windows 12 no longer has ads.

Corporations will continue to corporate. Active Directory is a powerful thing. SharePoint is another dependency that's hard to get rid of, even more so when it becomes the file server where all Office content is stored.

[josefritzishere]

I have been waiting for this day since the move to SFF and thin clients. They've been threatening to do all compute in the cloud... at which point the OS, local or otherwise becomes irrelevant.

[rbanffy]

In fact, the thin client that drives my desk at [company] runs Linux with the Citrix client to connect to a VDI that exists somewhere in a datacenter we own, because regulations.

[neonstatic]

> They are the ones that make Windows be the default operating system on everyone's computers

I've got to disagree. Macs are a fantastic option as long as the software needed to do actual work is available. That's the real bottleneck and it's not something Dell, Lenovo, or HP have any power over.

[rbanffy]

They still ship a lot more computers than Apple. For most of the world, Apple is a niche product. I use it, and I love them, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking corporations will start buying Mac Minis to replace their desktops and thin clients anytime soon.

[neonstatic]

I am not fooling myself and I do not care what corporations would or would not do - I simply state that the reason there is such a pressure to use Windows is not due to Dell and other providers, but software providers - mainly Microsoft.

[Sharlin]

That… does not follow. Corporations simply aren't going to start buying Macs for all of their millions of rank-and-file corporate drones. Even if they wanted, and they don't, they're tied to the Windows ecosystem in all sorts of ways, even though the software lives on someone else's computer these days.

[neonstatic]

Thanks for saying the same thing I have said? Do people even read before they post? Seems like the moment Apple is mentioned some folks just turn on a downvote + disagree autopilot, even when they agree?

[josephg]

Nah. I think the problem is that windows and macOS did everything users wanted them to do about 10-15 years ago. Everything since then has been lipstick on a pig.

If windows were a building, they need to stop tacking on more rooms like it’s a gaudy McMansion. If they really wanna keep working on it, work to make what’s already there more beautiful. Optimise. Reduce the install size. Clean up some of the decades of tech debt. Unify the different generations of UI toolkits. Write documentation. Port security critical parts to rust, where appropriate. Refine, don’t reinvent.

[throwaway27448]

> did everything users wanted them to do about 10-15 years ago.

Certainly not; not by a long shot. Besides, most users don't even understand the potential of software. But why bother improving it if you still make money shipping crap?

[josephg]

Like what? What important user facing features were shipped in the last 10 years in windows or macOS?

[Throaway1975123]

and it made the pig actually uglier!

[qwertygerty]

I agree, I've been amazed watching people release after release upgrading to newer versions of Windows and office, when what they used them for functionally didnt change. I could never make sense of how people didnt see it for what it is, and accepted the continuous costs. But hey, I guess that's capitalism, and people are captured by it. If it has a new shine, and everyone else is doing it, let's all jump over the cliff's edge.

[jmclnx]

And to add to this, proprietary OSs are about to get worse and can blame the politicians for it.

With these new age laws, these systems can legally ask for personal information, and I am sure as time goes, information required will expand.

As for Linux, seems systemd is all in on this, as for the BSDs, I doubt they will enforce these new laws.

[surgical_fire]

You can lie when it requests for personal information.

I always identify myself as "Conan, The Barbarian" when creating account.

[gostsamo]

why I should be the one bothering with that though? and what happens when it starts requiring internet connection and biometric age verification?

[intrasight]

In a couple years you won't have to bother with that. The device will connect to the ID chip embedded in your body when you're born. And this will be a one-time hard-wired coupling for that device when it is first turned on.

[surgical_fire]

Are you claiming Linux is becoming always online?

That's one hell of a claim.

[gostsamo]

if it is governmently mandated that it is, it might become, at least the user facing distros.

[surgical_fire]

The nature of Linux makes this pretty much impossible.

Say Ubuntu ships with some package for identity validation bullshit. What stops anyone from repackaging it and offering it without those packages?

[jmclnx]

of cource you can, but in the future ? Maybe you will be required to upload an ID.

[josefritzishere]

Is it too optimistic to hope that sanity will prevail and users will get treated with respect?

[rawgabbit]

Microsoft is declaring all users are now corporate drones. All your activity will be tied to your Microsoft account. All your files, images, and regular screenshots of your PC will be sucked into OneDrive. If your mouse has not moved in five minutes a manager will be notified.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"I swear it seems like nobody at Microsoft no even once have asked actual users for what they would like to see in the OS."

Why would they want to do that (serious question, think about it)

[pydry]

Actual users are less important to Microsoft than execs who actually purchase the licenses.

[chuckadams]

Used to be that people who bought the OS were the customer. Now just like everything else these days, they're the product. And the OS still isn't even free.

[forinti]

Plus it's hard to buy a computer without paying the MS tax, unless you build one yourself.

That's an issue I would like to see legislated! In fact, in my country there is a law that prohibits bundled purchases: it's just that the authorities are not tech savvy enough to see it when it pertains to computers and Windows.

[II2II]

While we're at it, lets stop bundling UEFI.

I'm being slightly absurd here since you need some sort of firmware to simply start up the computer and install an operating system, but here is my point: to most people, the operating system is part of the computer. The computer is simply an expensive brick without it. On top of that, a lot of the negativity towards bundling Windows originates from Microsoft's past monopolistic practices[1]. We certainly don't hear many people criticizing the bundling of macOS or iOS on Apple products or Android/Chrome OS on Android devices or Chromebooks. (There may be people who want to load alternative operating systems on these devices, but that is different from criticizing the bundling of the OS.)

[1] Is Microsoft forcing hardware vendors to install Windows even a thing these days?

[vbezhenar]

It makes sense, if manufacturer provides support for Linux on the same laptop SKU. But that's very rarely the case. So selling laptop without OS seems like selling half-working product. When you're buying a car, it comes with a lot of software. ECU software, multimedia software (sometimes it's Windows CE) and so on.

I saw laptops selling with FreeDOS but realistically speaking I think that majority of these laptops end up with pirated Windows, so all it provides is increasing level of piracy.

Ideally laptop should provide a choice between Linux and Windows on the first boot. And easy way to buy Windows license if user chooses it.

[intrasight]

1. There are plenty of computers sold with Linux installed.

2. You absolutely should build the computer yourself. You get a much better computer with best of class parts. And you learn something.

[forinti]

There are a few, but it seems that the best option is usually offered with Windows.

The last 3 machines I bought (for myself and for family members) came with Windows and I immediately installed Linux on them.

[moomin]

What I learned is that I am no good at building computers.

[rbanffy]

> 1. There are plenty of computers sold with Linux installed.

Compared to what?

[dpark]

Compared to a hypothetical world without computers with Linux preinstalled, presumably.

“Plenty” doesn’t really seem like a relative term here, but a statement that there are enough options on the market if someone wants to buy a machine with Linux preinstalled.

[WarmWash]

Users want a one time payment of $150, for a 50 million LoC software product, and then get 10 years of support.

Everyone here slinging mud, while getting paid out of the SaaS pot. Would windows be a better product if it was user focused but cost $40/mo? From Microsoft's POV it would probably kill numbers.

[rawgabbit]

Two wrongs don’t make a right. What matters is being upfront and transparent. Microsoft could just have said the initial license is just that. If you want updates be prepared to pay.

[zigzag312]

There are more than 10x more users than lines of code