Windows 11
Hello. I have a new computer with really good specs. I reinstalled Windows 10 as usual, but now I have regularly an recommandation in order to install Windows 11. I have nothing against it, but after many searches on the web, I don't know what I should do... It seems that there are many pros and as many cons. As usual with a Microsoft solution, many people argue that it is a bad OS when others praise its amazing features. I would like to know what you think about this OS?
It's Windows 10 with a shittier taskbar and with a TPM requirement. Right now there's literally no reason to upgrade.
None of my desktop PCs -- purchased as recycled machines from a local PC parts store -- meet the minimum requirements to use Win 11, routinely nagged whenever I do a manual update check. The specs of my current machines meet my needs quite adequately, especially given my very limited, fixed income. All 3 Win 10, 2 are x64 with Win 10 Pro. The 3rd is x86 Win 10 Home. Though the CPU is x64. The OS preinstalled by the PC parts store was x86, and I've had zero reason to change that.
Eventually I might buy another refurbished PC that can run Win 11, but that won't be for a number of years.
When Win 10 was announced MS officially announced that was the last Win version one had to purchase, everything would be handled through the Win Store, free upgrades, etc. At the time I thought the claim was ridiculous.
One of the major reasons for me to not get Win 11 is the OS is more intrusive in sending data back to MS on a frequent and regular basis. Another is the requirement to have a very expensive bundle of hardware to run the pig.
The hype about how great Win 11 would be reminds me of Win 8. A lot of spurious hype that ended up being nonsense.
Win 10 somewhat returned the UI look to Win 7 standards. In the beginning I wasn't all that fond of the flat window style, I really liked the 3D rounded look Win 7 has. Now, though, I am OK with it.
Eventually I might buy another refurbished PC that can run Win 11, but that won't be for a number of years.
When Win 10 was announced MS officially announced that was the last Win version one had to purchase, everything would be handled through the Win Store, free upgrades, etc. At the time I thought the claim was ridiculous.
One of the major reasons for me to not get Win 11 is the OS is more intrusive in sending data back to MS on a frequent and regular basis. Another is the requirement to have a very expensive bundle of hardware to run the pig.
The hype about how great Win 11 would be reminds me of Win 8. A lot of spurious hype that ended up being nonsense.
Win 10 somewhat returned the UI look to Win 7 standards. In the beginning I wasn't all that fond of the flat window style, I really liked the 3D rounded look Win 7 has. Now, though, I am OK with it.
Thank you very much for your comments which encourage me to stay on Win10.
I guess that some of you remember how some Microsoft OS were arguable...
My favorite among them was Win2000. It was wonderful. Just my point of view ++
I guess that some of you remember how some Microsoft OS were arguable...
My favorite among them was Win2000. It was wonderful. Just my point of view ++
Last edited on
IMO since XP, every other release has been iffy.
XP - Good
Vista - Bad
7 - Good
8/8.1 - Bad
10 - Good
11 - ???
XP - Good
Vista - Bad
7 - Good
8/8.1 - Bad
10 - Good
11 - ???
I think 8.1 was good. I got a bad reputation because of the start screen, but you just had to get used to it. Nowadays I configure the start menu on 10 to work like the 8.1 start screen. I think it's much more comfortable like that. It's like the convenience of desktop icons, but much more accessible, because you don't need to minimize your windows to access them.
https://ibb.co/LZ0bNy7
https://ibb.co/LZ0bNy7
Last edited on
To be honest, I never really used 8/8.1 I saw how bad 8 was and only used it for testing purposes.... I still use a Windows 7 laptop!
historically, almost 100%, every other version of windows sucks. I know this isnt scientific, but 11 isnt giving me a warm fuzzy just yet.
I just bought a new laptop that came with Windows 11.
Windows 10 was not an option for the laptop I wanted.
I'm very slowly getting used to it.
I'm not finding it that different from Windows 10.
My biggest complaint is when you right click for a context menu, it presents what MS thinks are the most common operations. I usually have to click "show more options" to get the rest of the context menu.
Windows 10 was not an option for the laptop I wanted.
I'm very slowly getting used to it.
I'm not finding it that different from Windows 10.
My biggest complaint is when you right click for a context menu, it presents what MS thinks are the most common operations. I usually have to click "show more options" to get the rest of the context menu.
No one remembers Windows 2000?
Really? I am the only one thinking that it was really good? Ok.
Really? I am the only one thinking that it was really good? Ok.
Last edited on
Win 2000 was....OK. Superseded by Win XP for anyone who wasn't in a professional environment.
I remember Win 2000, I was working in a chain retail computer store near MS HQ. My store was set up to do the world-wide live launch of Win Me.
The store employees all got free MS goodies, including a retail CD copy of Win Me. I also was able to get a retail CD copy of Win 2000. I tried both on my AMD 1GHz Win 98SE machine for testing, and I personally liked 2000 marginally better than Me. After a day I restored the 98 OS. I only later upgraded to XP when I bought a new refurbished PC.
I avoided Vista, too many people I knew had serious problems. Just as many who upgraded from 9x to Me, or went via upgrade to 8/8.1.
People who bought new retail computers with Me/Vista/8 preinstalled didn't have as many problems as those who upgraded. Though problems were still a very large part of the experience with those Win versions.
Even if my PCs were able to handle Win 11 I wouldn't upgrade, Win 10 works just fine for what I do. In several respects I wish I was still using Win 7.
Bit o' History: Until I moved a couple of years ago I still had in my possession floppy versions of MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 that had been installed on early several PCs I owned.
I remember Win 2000, I was working in a chain retail computer store near MS HQ. My store was set up to do the world-wide live launch of Win Me.
The store employees all got free MS goodies, including a retail CD copy of Win Me. I also was able to get a retail CD copy of Win 2000. I tried both on my AMD 1GHz Win 98SE machine for testing, and I personally liked 2000 marginally better than Me. After a day I restored the 98 OS. I only later upgraded to XP when I bought a new refurbished PC.
I avoided Vista, too many people I knew had serious problems. Just as many who upgraded from 9x to Me, or went via upgrade to 8/8.1.
People who bought new retail computers with Me/Vista/8 preinstalled didn't have as many problems as those who upgraded. Though problems were still a very large part of the experience with those Win versions.
Even if my PCs were able to handle Win 11 I wouldn't upgrade, Win 10 works just fine for what I do. In several respects I wish I was still using Win 7.
Bit o' History: Until I moved a couple of years ago I still had in my possession floppy versions of MS-DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 that had been installed on early several PCs I owned.
dos 4,5, and 6 were pretty stable and good for what they were. Win 3 and 3.1 were OK but too bloated for most computers of the time; they wanted to combine the OS and UI before this and were leaning harder on people to use windows without going down to dos level for a while by now, but 95 was still too early because...
win 95 was horrid, and it would wreck hard disks in nothing flat from its poor memory management and virtual memory garbage, partly due to bad design and partly due to racing it out onto machines that should never had tried to run it (it was a pentium level box needed OS that was shoved out towards the end of life of the 386!). MS did not discourage putting it onto older machines strongly enough, so schools and businesses were trying to run it on 5 year old taters.
98 fixed most of this so it stopped grinding the disks an crashing so much. Also, hardware mostly had caught up to it. This was the crowning jewel of the in betweens, before security locked it all up so you could hack on it and make it do all kinds of stuff without it trying to fix itself or blow a fuse, you could make it run really fast and hot for the games that were starting to demand a lot more for 3d and graphics and sound and all. For the same reasons, it was a security nightmare at work.
2000 melted NT and 98 together, the best of both worlds. NT couldn't do a lot of stuff, esp directx and gaming and commercial graphics, and 98 had all the security features of a screen door.
after 2000 came a slew of good and bad that were mostly OK; the complaints moved from stability and compatibility and such to horrid UI changes and dumbing down attempts that had to be undone with patches and hacks and third party tools. Vista and ME were stable but sub par, 7 and 8 were pretty solid so they released 8.1 which was a one-off junker. 10 has been pretty good but too many 'borg knows best' features and ET phone home junk, and 11 seems to have doubled or tripled down on that and added nothing of value.
win 95 was horrid, and it would wreck hard disks in nothing flat from its poor memory management and virtual memory garbage, partly due to bad design and partly due to racing it out onto machines that should never had tried to run it (it was a pentium level box needed OS that was shoved out towards the end of life of the 386!). MS did not discourage putting it onto older machines strongly enough, so schools and businesses were trying to run it on 5 year old taters.
98 fixed most of this so it stopped grinding the disks an crashing so much. Also, hardware mostly had caught up to it. This was the crowning jewel of the in betweens, before security locked it all up so you could hack on it and make it do all kinds of stuff without it trying to fix itself or blow a fuse, you could make it run really fast and hot for the games that were starting to demand a lot more for 3d and graphics and sound and all. For the same reasons, it was a security nightmare at work.
2000 melted NT and 98 together, the best of both worlds. NT couldn't do a lot of stuff, esp directx and gaming and commercial graphics, and 98 had all the security features of a screen door.
after 2000 came a slew of good and bad that were mostly OK; the complaints moved from stability and compatibility and such to horrid UI changes and dumbing down attempts that had to be undone with patches and hacks and third party tools. Vista and ME were stable but sub par, 7 and 8 were pretty solid so they released 8.1 which was a one-off junker. 10 has been pretty good but too many 'borg knows best' features and ET phone home junk, and 11 seems to have doubled or tripled down on that and added nothing of value.
Last edited on
| 98 fixed most of this so it stopped grinding the disks an crashing so much. Also, hardware mostly had caught up to it. This was the crowning jewel of the in betweens, before security locked it all up so you could hack on it and make it do all kinds of stuff without it trying to fix itself or blow a fuse, you could make it run really fast and hot for the games that were starting to demand a lot more for 3d and graphics and sound and all. For the same reasons, it was a security nightmare at work. |
|
|
On the subject of hacking things together, up until XP you could still do a lot, because you could load unsigned drivers without booting the system in developer mode or whatever it's called, so you had easy full access to the system if you wanted. I wrote a prank for a friend that had a normal program and a driver.
The driver could receive two commands from the user mode. It could either hide a specified process from the system's process list by removing it from a linked list (some madman reverse-engineered the kernel memory where the list is located and found how to deterministically reach it from a known location), and thus would not appear on Task Manager, or it could crash the system by performing some illegal action.
The program would call the driver to hide itself and then would monitor the audio output using the loopback device. When it detected continuous sound for a few seconds it would signal the driver to crash the system. I believe it also monitored for certain processes and killed them after a few seconds.
My friend wanted to prevent a coworker from playing annoying music on a work computer.
Since Windows Vista there's been no way to do anything like that stealthily. You have to boot the system in developer mode each time, and it puts a watermark on the screen. I suppose the easiest route would be patching the kernel to remove the signing check and turning secure boot off. I don't know if anyone's done the reversing work to do that.
Last edited on
The creators of the O&O ShutUp 10 app have made it usable on Win11 machines.
https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10
Sadly the app is really needed on Win 10 and 11 to stop the OS "phoning home."
https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10
Sadly the app is really needed on Win 10 and 11 to stop the OS "phoning home."
Windows 8 was a bit disgusting. I have a laptop with Windows 8 still installed that I rarely use, and just getting to some things is plain inconvenient.
Using Windows 8 is fine as long as its not my main setup, otherwise I could never.
I'm thoroughly disgusted 😂. I tried my best to make my taskbar as compact as possible (though it's still rather large) while still organized.
Using Windows 8 is fine as long as its not my main setup, otherwise I could never.
| https://ibb.co/LZ0bNy7 |
I'm thoroughly disgusted 😂. I tried my best to make my taskbar as compact as possible (though it's still rather large) while still organized.
In my opinion Windows 11 doesn't stray from much from Windows 10. Apart from the different design and the centering of the icons on the task bar, there's still the large amount of bloat that comes with any Windows release.
In all honesty, I think it best that we all wait a while for Windows 11 to mature. Though how long a 'while' is to you, is up to you.
But since I use Linux none of this is tends to concern me.
In all honesty, I think it best that we all wait a while for Windows 11 to mature. Though how long a 'while' is to you, is up to you.
But since I use Linux none of this is tends to concern me.
Last edited on
| Geckoo wrote: |
|---|
| I have a new computer with really good specs. |
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| It's Windows 10 with a shittier taskbar and with a TPM requirement. Right now there's literally no reason to upgrade. |
"New, good" specs could include Intel 12th gen CPU, which in turn could contain "P- and E-cores". Something that benefits from "novel" scheduler. Then again, if Win10 does run on it, then that gimmick alone is not enough to change distro.
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X 8-Core
Processor 3.80 GHz
32 Go
Not the best - not the least.
I prefer to wait staying on Windows 10. Maybe after some updates...
Processor 3.80 GHz
32 Go
Not the best - not the least.
I prefer to wait staying on Windows 10. Maybe after some updates...
Last edited on
@NoahP, the look of the Win 11 interface isn't much different, yeah. It is what the OS does "behind the scenes" that is a big change. Requiring specific hardware features and routinely doing "phone home" telemetry more often is just part of the "enhancements."
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.