Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Windows 11’s first update makes AMD CPU performance even worse (theverge.com)
224 points by Tomte 2 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 267 comments





I honestly don't understand Microsoft's plan with Windows 11.

6 years ago, with the release of Windows 10, it was all about "this is the last version of Windows!" and they went with the rolling release model. A little strange but they stuck with it for 6 years until suddenly this summer they announce Windows 11 and they went hard talking up how it was a huge change to Windows but in reality it isn't. At all.

It has a new visual layer sure but the applications are still the old Windows 10 (and so really the old Windows XP?) ones with that new look. They introduced a new store and support for additional stores such as the Amazon Android app store.

I guess what I am saying is I don't get why now they are calling it Windows 11? They could have just carried on calling it Windows 10. They have introduced big UI and feature changes in previous Windows 10 updates (perhaps not quite as big as the new taskbar and Explorer changes).

It is a free upgrade for Windows 10 license holders (consumer anyway, not sure how it works for Enterprise?).

It just all feels so rushed and messy and the end product is just not very good as we can clearly see here.

I don't want to hate on Windows, after all they have introduced some really interesting new things since Windows 10 initial release such as WSL. It is just there didn't appear to be a want or need for a Windows 11 and this rushed mess makes it look like Microsoft didn't (doesn't?) know what it is doing with Windows either. Shrug.


They want to drop support for a lot of hardware, and can't figure out how to do that without looking really bad while staying as Windows 10.

That is really the difference between Win 10 and Win 11: Requirement for UEFI, TPM 2.0 and a CPU that does AVX2 and FMA3, and some kind of hardware-assisted virtualization.

UEFI allows them to rewrite their entire bootup codebase with only one target. Literally hundreds of megabytes of sourcecode will be removed from their tree, some of it dating back to the 80's, and replaced with something that is much, much smaller and cleaner.

TPM 2.0 and hardware-assisted virtualization allow them to move the kernel one level up in the privilege hierarchy, while properly verifying it during boot to eliminate entire categories of exploits and providing trusted computing that might actually work this time. (Not entirely positive, but it's a desirable feature for them.)

And having all the cpus that can support the OS also support the good vector instructions greatly raises the baseline against which most software is compiled. This is an often underlooked point: The benchmarks and the most performance sensitive programs might get multiple code paths or versions for different cpus, but by far the most software made for Win 10 still only targets a very low baseline. Even if it's not 32-bit, most programs only target the ancient SSE2 (!) because that's the baseline that's quaranteed to exist if you have a 64-bit cpu, never mind it's over 20 years old now.


As someone who has actually written (albeit following a tutorial, for a hobby project) a working non-UEFI bootloader, and having done a lot of experimentation with dual-booting, manipulating disk images, etc.:

I find it hard to believe dropping legacy boot support saves hundreds of megabytes of any data in the OS, let alone source code. (If anything, the UEFI code is orders of magnitude larger / closer to that size, than legacy boot support.)

I could believe that dropping legacy boot support drops a lot of complexity and arcane, old code that's no longer as well-understood. However the actual footprint of that code can't be large. The boot sector is only 512 bytes, then you chain to a secondary and maybe tertiary step in the boot but those are measured in kilobytes or megabytes, hardly hundreds of megabytes (compiled).

But the fact is once the boot process has completed there's no longer any reason to refer back to any of the stuff that happened during the legacy boot while the operating system is running normally; by that point how the boot was accomplished is a non-issue. So it's not like, for example, supporting outdated/obscure hardware where you have to keep a bunch of drivers around.


Maybe the size includes pdf/docx/ppt notes. Maybe there are a few decades of accumulated copy+paste+modify code chunks. Or maybe it really is just complexity -- but at the end of the day that's what matters.

> But the fact is once the boot process has completed there's no longer any reason to refer back

The instruction pointer is hardly the only state here. Doesn't the __SM__ structure (and the mess that came before) cascade into a bunch of configuration? It seems to me that it really could look like keeping a bunch of drivers around.


Or maybe this is a comment on a forum full of people that like to pretend they are experts in any subject at hand, and the author has no idea how big this source code is. Literally.

This. MBR+LILO booting is dumb simple, these people don't know a shit about what their are talking about.

Yep, I develop a media software, something to handle live audio, video.. I tried last year to upgrade from sse2 to sse4 and got bug reports from users the week after, apparently a lot of people still use old Phenom and Atom boards...

I was still happily running a 2009 Phenom II until last year, when I was forced to upgrade when the motherboard started acting up. The thing is, performance-wise it was just fine. In 2009 it would be unthinkable for a 1998 CPU to be anything but a paperweight, but the performance plateau of today is real

I don’t know, I had a phenom running for years as a server that was running a Linux vm for automated torrenting, a Linux vm running the ubiquiti NVR, and the host itself serving as a media server. But that’s about all it could do. ;)

I realize that sounds a bit like a Monty Python critique of the Romans, but there’s no way I would/could use the platform as a daily workstation professionally. It served its last days as a home servant droid well, but just. It’s longevity in a low-demand role was only possible by augmenting it with an array of SATA SSDs and a hypervisor. I finally put it down a while back (and still had one backup mobo NIB for it). All the above relatively lightweight functions it was performing can be done with better performance on a far smaller footprint for size/power consumption/noise today. Those attributes are part of an improving performance profile. People talk about a performance plateau, which I’ve pushed back on in other posts as really being a demand plateau for many of its advocates. Case in point, using the phenom platform as a daily workstation. If one can even think about pulling that off, it can only be because their expectations have dropped very low for performance or their needs haven’t changed since Phenom was in its prime. Yeah it runs the old workloads like it always did (and why would it not? Even better when augmented with more modern hw/sw), but no way under the sun would I be able to overlay my current demand profile on a phenom platform and have anything but swamped resources and interminable delays. I say this as someone who fully appreciates the awesome power we have in a 5v/2A RPi smaller than a deck of cards, and what can be done a larger platform drawing less than 60w today, let alone what can be done with 1000w. The phenom platform is highly inefficient in comparison to the tools now at your disposal.


I still have a hexa-core Phenom II as my primary desktop workhorse. I'm not looking forward to the day the motherboard or CPU flakes out. It really does fulfill most of my needs. The only real advantage I can see by upgrading to something more modern is lower power usage. From an environmental perspective, I'm guessing I'd have to run the new system for a long time to make up for the impact of manufacturing the new motherboard and CPU.

It's more anachronistic than that.. people don't really use that much paper anymore that they need paperweights.

Maybe a keychain ornament.


I agree about the performance plateau, I'm using an FX-8350 for gaming, and I'm fine. Even handled Cyberpunk 2077 well, and that only came out not even a year ago.

Newer CPUs have better security (hardware encryption, better virtualization, etc). Not nearly as much better as it should be, even compared to ARM, but better.

Also, some of the recent processors that support everything you've listed are dropped. A hunch at the time of Windows 11 announcement was that https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/bitlocker-sleep-mode-vuln... can only be fully mitigated in the CPUs (or the mitigation caused performance degradation).

I'm not sure I buy your point about ISA extensions. Many programs still target Windows XP or Windows 7, and if that "lag" remains the case, then it will be many, many years until vendors can reasonably require Windows 11 as a proxy for those ISA extensions. In the meantime, vendors can offer a Windows XP-11 version, and a Windows 11 "optimized" version, but at that rate, it would be just as much work to put the optimizations in the single version and make the program automatically detect the CPU, saving the user the trouble of figuring out which version they need while also making the CPU optimizations work on older Windows versions.

I don't think Microsoft is concerned about ISA extensions for third parties. Apps can use function multi-versioning to support beneficial ISA extensions. I think they're more interested in ISA extensions and CPU features for first party code. They can enforce protections in drivers, kernel modules, and services.

But Microsoft can do that too? They can compile one version of each DLL for SSE2 and another for AVX or whatever if they want, same as any other vendor. It's not like they can just turn off SSE2 for everybody, because it would break every program, and even new programs may use SSE2 instructions in combination with newer x86 extensions. Even if they did (and I'm not sure it's even possible in x86), I don't see how it could increase security anyways; any new Spectre vulnerability or whatever is probably going to be just as exploitable if not more so using AVX load instructions as SSE load instructions.

> the most software made for Win 10 still only targets a very low baseline. Even if it's not 32-bit, most programs only target the ancient SSE2 (!) because that's the baseline that's quaranteed to exist if you have a 64-bit cpu, never mind it's over 20 years old now.

Windows 10 will be widely used in 2031. You're not going to drop support for it and old CPU regardless of Windows 11 existence.


No, but since everyone on Win11 will be on a new baseline they can force developers to either support both Win10 and Win11, and not one for all, on the lowest support level available.

That doesn't make sense to me. Win 10 programs compiled against SSE2 will still work fine on Windows 11, so they can't force developers to choose.

I just booted Win 11 using legacy bios. Just remove those artificial checks in the installer and no more problems.

> and can't figure out how to do that without looking really bad while staying as Windows 10

Would that really look so bad? Even the Linux kernel dropped 80386 eventually.

Windows 10 feature updates occasionally phasing out hardware support after a few years wouldn't seem wrong at all in my eyes, they could easily explain it as a trade-off necessary for getting "10 forever". And Windows users were already used to not getting their feature update immediately on older hardware, an eventual escalation from late to never wouldn't have been surprising at all.


But do you pull kernel updates automatically, unattended? Because Windows feature updates are like that - every now and then they may market them up, including popping up some notification in the system, but otherwise they just get installed automatically over time. If they started dropping compatibility with older CPUs and software with subsequent updates, they could find themselves in the middle of a huge PR mess when one of their automated updates suddenly breaks a chunk of some industry. Makes more sense to create a version boundary if the changes are really as extreme as GP described, preventing large amounts of users from sleep-walking into a disaster.

Windows 10 feature updates (recently twice a year, named $year'H'$term) have been gated by hardware compatibility lists for quite a while (since the start?), and there's even a distinction between feature update versions that have their own "Long Term Servicing Channel" and those that don't. Sounds familiar?

The boundaries you ask for have already been in place, long before 11.


I didn't know that - especially about "LTSC" for feature updates. Thanks for correcting me.

I agree wholeheartedly, but this made me chuckle:

> providing trusted computing that might actually work this time.

Ahah, sure. <Pinky & the Brain tune starts>


> That is really the difference between Win 10 and Win 11: Requirement for UEFI, TPM 2.0 and a CPU that does AVX2 and FMA3, and some kind of hardware-assisted virtualization.

Only SSE4.2. It supports Intel CPUs without AVX2 since that was missing from some Celeron/Pentiums.


Mostly agree but AVX isn't still a requirement because Intel still sell Celeron without AVX. Even Core i5-L16G7 (sold in 2020) don't support AVX at all, because Tremont core (used for Celeron and little core) don't support AVX.

Thank you for the excellent summary here. You should have written the tl;dr for the Windows team even though I know that officially saying this would likely piss off just as many people.

One follow-on question - any insights into how what you wrote above explains why Microsoft dropped support for AMD Zen in Win11 (Zen+ and higher are only supported)? Looking at Wikichip, it doesn't seem like there's a feature missing, so perhaps there's an unfixable bug in Zen?


Isn't RDRAND broken in Zen1? (I think it was broken on launch in zen2 and zen3 also but they patched it in agesa updates)

I don't know if that's the case, but wouldn't that be a strange reason to withhold a Windows release from it?

If nobody uses Zen1 then it's worth dropping just so you don't have to test it.

This is insightful. Thanks

> TPM 2.0 and hardware-assisted virtualization allow them to move the kernel one level up in the privilege hierarchy, while properly verifying it during boot to eliminate entire categories of exploits and providing trusted computing that might actually work this time.

So Microsoft is going all in with hardware based security while everyone is still recovering from Spectre and Meltdown and dropping in additional layers of software fix CPU security flaws? Is there a betting pool somewhere on how long that will take to backfire?


A big part of it is not just hardware based security, it's virtualization based security (VBS). Essentially adding a hypervisor layer under Windows that manages access to sensitive processes like lsass, which handles credential material. This is a huge improvement in the Windows security model, and even if there are bypasses, they are non-trivial and consist of more than just elevating to admin/SYSTEM as is the current case.

It won't for them, because they've shifted culpability over to the hardware vendors.

Win11 does look rushed. They want TPM2.0 and to move the CPU requirements up about 7 years (which puts more than half of my computers and several family members into EOL with respect to windows). The UI looks like some steps forward and many backwards. I am also thinking this sort of cutting out older harder in this way will make many people re-think if they need a computer or something like an ipad.

I think I might upgrade one VM and see. Then leave most of my computers alone for now. It will take them a bit to shake out the quirks on this. It took them about 2 cycles to get win10 into a usable state. Which is fairly typical of them 'wait until service pack 2'.


>which puts more than half of my computers and several family members into EOL with respect to windows

Why? It's not like Windows 10 will suddenly stop working for you. That will keep being supported until 2025 which, at 10 years total, is quite plenty. Sure, you won't get any of the new shiny features of Win 11 but if you're PCs are so old, then you won't need them anyway.

Also, feel free to switch you and your family to Linux.


After 4 years they'll either not get security updates or have to switch to Linux. There are plenty of PCs running older hardware that'll most likely be perfectly fine after 2025 but no longer be able to run a supported version of Windows.

>After 4 years they'll either not get security updates or have to switch to Linux.

To be fair, Windows 10 will be 10 years old at that time and their PC will be over 11 years old which is an eternity in technology time. 11 year old HW is not very energy efficient and is often vulnerable to various side channel attacks that need SW mitigations which make them even slower. Newer HW is more secure, while being more energy efficient to boot. Even if Microsoft would continue support for ancient hardware, the chances are Nvidia and AMD would drop driver support for what they consider to be legacy hardware, like they alwasy do.

I also keep my 15 year old PC (Core 2 Quad) going for my parents but I moved it to Linux as I can't expect Microsoft to keep supporting such old hardware for free forever and at some point, the SW and HW industry have to keep moving forward and that sometimes means removing support for legacy stuff even if that means cutting some users with old hardware off (they still can keep using their systems after all, just not run the latest and greatest SW).

Is Apple doing better officially supporting hardware overs 10 years old?


> 11 years old which is an eternity in technology time

No its not. For casual use, 15 year old PC is very much fine and works perfectly in many use cases ie for our parents. You may swap for SSD but that's it, it can be blazingly fast for the tasks required.

Forcing everybody to move into Linux when they can barely handle Windows is quite a stretch, there might be licences to software which won't work, same for hardware. Lets not forget whole world isn't on HN level of computer expertise to debug issues.


11 years is a very long time in the personal computer industry. It’s a little under 20% of the time we’ve had such an industry.

PC hardware of recent years is much longer lived in terms of performance than in earlier years.

A PC from 11 years ago is likely running a spinning hard disk and running a 32-bit version of the OS, no?

I meant slightly more recent, like when Windows 10 was released. But no, my relatives have PCs from 2010 running 64-bit Windows that I upgraded to SSDs in the mid-2010‘s and that are still running perfectly fine. I myself was running a 2012 PC (with SSDs from the start) until last year, and the replacement isn’t that much faster. I’m also running a second PC from 2016 that doesn’t meet the Windows 11 requirements but would surely be fast enough beyond 2025.

I bought my first 64bit AMD CPU somewhere around 2001-2002 (at that time this premium turned out more or less useless). And as I mentioned, you may switch HDD to SSD to get very acceptable performance from even quite old computers.

> bought my first 64bit AMD CPU somewhere around 2001-2002

I doubt it. The first Athlon 64 was launched late 2003.


Vista was released in 2007 and supported x86-64. The first x86-64 machines from AMD were released in 2003.

But did people typically run Vista 64-bit or the 32-bit version?

No data to back this us, but my intuition would be that other than government or big corporations, everyone buying a new machine with Windows installed would get the 64 bit version. And even then the uber-conservative government / corporate buyers wouldn't be rolling out Vista, they'd be sticking with XP.

I’ll ask some MS pals for some data.

>Forcing everybody to move into Linux when they can barely handle Windows is quite a stretch

Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can keep using whatever HW and OS you have as long as you wish. What's your point?


"Windows 10 is 10 years old"

It's a rolling release, so with 21H1 it's only half a year old.

And I don't care what they do. It will be the last Windows for me.


21H1 is a release which is half a year old, the OS itself was launched in 2015 which makes it 10 years old in 2025.

The issue is that hardware purchased last year and not supported by Windows 11 (like for example the Surface Studio 2 still sold by Microsoft, and other currently sold CPUs) has a much longer lifetime than five years.

> To be fair, Windows 10 will be 10 years old at that time and their PC will be over 11 years old which is an eternity in technology time.

To be fair, the PC won't be that old. Every single machine with Zen (1st gen Ryzen and Threadrippers), for example.


To be fair my 11 year old desktop CPU is faster than the cpu in my brand new work laptop.

Seriously. I’m working in a school. We have lots of computers from 2012. Maybe they will finally be replaced by 2025 (I kind of doubt it), but we’ll still have lots of machines from 2014/2015.

With how little my grandma uses her computer for and how confusing OS changes are, I almost wonder if I'd be better off installing ReactOS.

> have to switch to Linux

Come, now, we all know it's mostly hobbyists keeping 15+ year old PCs running with Linux


Assuming you could afford to upgrade, it's pretty bonkers keeping these old inefficient machines running from a power consumption standpoint.

I had a bunch of old Dell Precision workstations and I eventually got shot of them because my electric bills were becoming more and more eye-watering. I built a cheap PC that (with virtualisation) can carry out all these old machines workloads and more, and my power bills were a fraction of what they were previously. Quite an eye opener for me with regards to how energy efficient new stuff is.


IKR. My parents are still rocking my old gaming PC from 2006-2007 with a quad core Intel Core 2 Quad and Nvidia 6800GT and it serves them fine. However, by modern standards that PC is an absolute energy hog for what it does. The CPU alone has a declared TDP of 105W (in practice, maybe even more). A modern laptop-grade quad-core Intel Tiger Lake 1165g7 would absolutely destroy it in terms of performance, and at 15W TDP, consume only a fraction of the power.

I love fighting planned obsolescence and reducing e-waste by repairing and keeping stuff working as long as possible but at some point old hardware should be replaced if funds allow it for the sake of energy efficiency and the environment.


That is fair enough. But most of the boxes I bought are fairly efficient, being laptops (usually 45w max under load). Sandybridge was a pretty good platform for its time. It was not until recently that they have iterated out of it. If you had a desktop yeah I would recommend the upgrade. My use case was portability with some very light gaming, and a decent screen for programming. I had done that cutover from power hungry boxes to fairly efficient ones in about 2006. I dumped about 40 bucks off my power bill. My rub with this upgrade for win11 is it seems kind of arbitrary. Mostly TPM. A feature I do not want or have a need for.

> If you had a desktop yeah I would recommend the upgrade

Aye, I was thinking more about older desktop machines rather than laptops, which by their nature are designed to be as power efficient as possible to extend how long you can run off of just the battery.

And again just to restate to others, it's worth upgrading if you can afford it. After I dumped those old Dells, I reckon I saved the nearly the price of a whole PC each year after kitting out with newer gear (until the price of electric went up again).

Apropos Windows 11, it seems there may be ways around the TPM requirements, though not ideal:

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/how-to/bypass-windows-11-tpm...


I’ve been fully off Windows for about a year now but if I was using Windows I’d be a bit upset if I had bought the non-free version that Windows advertised as the last Windows OS you will ever need and now they are going back on that. That’s classic old Microsoft behavior.

They allow free upgrade.

> Why? It's not like Windows 10 will suddenly stop working for you.

While this is true, Windows 8.1 started to pester me about my hardware constantly on an older (but not old at the time) PC when it was getting towards EOL with an obnoxious popup.


Windows 10, as of the October patch Tuesday, is already warning users that their machines are not Windows 11 ready

We have a computer (laptop) from 2011 - Lenovo w520, with 4 core i7 (second gen) and 16GB ram, full hd IPS screen, and factory SSD, and dedicated Nvidia Quadro with 2GB graphic ram. Boy this computer still rocks, and the battery still lasts 2-3 hours.

I think there weren't that many advances in raw speed. The only thing it is missing is HEVC hardware decoding (i don't remember if it has h.264, possibly not)

What I'm trying to say: 10 years is not that much for computers these day?


We have a computer (laptop) from 2011 - Lenovo w520, with 4 core i7 (second gen) and 16GB ram, full hd IPS screen, and factory SSD, and dedicated Nvidia Quadro with 2GB graphic ram. Boy this computer still rocks, and the battery still lasts 2-3 hours. I think there weren't that many advances in raw speed. The only thing it is missing is HEVC hardware decoding (i don't remember if it has h.264, possibly not)

What I'm trying to say: 10 years is not that much for computers these day?


Unfortunately, things being EOL'd is increasingly common place. I have issues with 'your OS is no longer supported' on both my iPad and Android phone. This becomes a problem when things like your banking app no longer work because they insist on being upgraded, but the upgrade won't install.

What kind of iPad do you have if the OS is no longer supported? For mobile devices, Apple is comparatively good at supporting older generations.

4th gen iPads got dropped because they only have a 32-bit CPU.

iPad4 I think. Old, but otherwise perfectly fine.

My hunch is that the minds behind Windows 10 being the last Windows have moved on. New blood needs a reason for a promotion.

Couldn't it also just be that the hardware manufacturers / OEMs finally managed to successfully arm-twist someone in MSFT into declaring a new version, in order to intentionally obsolete more hardware?

It's hard to do that on the "rolling release" Win10 model, which is actually why I liked it. There was sort of an implication that if it was "the last version of Windows" then I probably would be fine with my current hardware for quite a while.

But major version upgrades have always had the risk of your hardware going obsolete with them.

Just smells like an excuse for forced obsolescence to me.


Or possibly the opposite. Somebody's personal or professional enemy suggested a legitimate reason to go to Windows 11. And they realized that with a few small nudges that would look innocent they could sabotage the entire project and by extension their enemy's career.

It could very well be that old timers behind Windows 10 are getting tired of the new blood getting in their way. So they let things progress in a way that would let them stab the Windows 11 people in the back and swoop in to save the day with Windows 12.


It's all just a long-play by the windows 13 people, who will have their revenge as a dish served cold.

This is a long play by Windows 3.1 developers who introduced hidden code which would execute mid-2021 to release automated marketing messages for "Windows 11" and force update the code base with small time UI changes.

During the development of Windows 8 this code was discovered by a select and secret group of people. However, it was impossible to stop the scripts, silently executing on servers which are running in inaccessible concrete enclosures in Redmond since the 90s.

Cutting power supply or opening the enclosure to get to these servers would severely damage other critical hardware so they started soft countermeasures. Unaware developers would spread Windows 10 as the "last" Windows release but the operation to mitigate the Windows 11 terror could not be endangered by exposing this information.

To avoid global customer confusion, they chose their own strategy to deal with the sudden upgrade to "Windows 11" in 2021. They took the narrative into their own hands and jumped from Windows 8 directly to Windows 10, inventing some plausible story about why Windows 9 was missing. This way, the automated upgrade to Windows 11 could be masqueraded as their own choice


But that'll be a bad release in the good/bad pattern so they'll be avenged by the Windows 14 people.

I was thinking more that the "traditional" faction in MSFT, over 6 years, might have accumulated enough grievances and failures of the rolling model, that they made their case again and the leadership eventually went "fine, fine, we'll go back... for now".

This is all part of the temporal war. The Windows 20 faction is manipulating the time line.

This could be a movie with Dinesh from Silicon Valley as Microsoft’s CEO

Edit: ok wait this could be an episode of Silicon Valley although I haven’t see the last season


My thought was that this only happened because macOS went to 11.

Microsoft swears up and down that they never "officially" said that W10 would be "the last version of Windows". [0] Rather, it was said by some developer, which the media took and ran with. Microsoft, for their part, seems to have just smiled and nodded without ever feeling the need to dispel that little hiccup.

[0] https://www.pcworld.com/article/394724/why-is-there-a-window...


A Microsoft employee speaking at a Microsoft event is going to be considered an official Microsoft representative. Seems like false advertising that Microsoft didn’t correct the record before it was convenient for them to do so and after a bunch of people had paid for Windows 10 Pro.

Windows 11 is a free upgrade for anyone who has Windows 10, so having paid for Windows 10 Pro doesn't really give anyone a right to be angry.

What about if they have a 7th gen Intel chip or first-gen Ryzen, and aren't eligible for that upgrade?

Instead of getting Windows 10 support on that hardware indefinitely now they're done in 2025.


Anyway no one receive infinite support for hardware. For consumer perspective, Win11 is just rebranded (and upgraded) Win10 because they don't pay for upgrade.

If anyone purchased Windows 10 assuming it would be supported forever, that mistake is truly on them.

Probably some marketing experts thinking that Windows 10 would seem out-of-date now that Apple decided to stop versioning macOS at 10.x forever.

I was in the same place as the parent comment until I started seeing a blitz of laptop ads after not having seen them for years.

Mostly around Windows 11-ready machines.

So I agree with marketing experts, but Apple's probably not the catalyst, selling laptops is.


It's because of two things: OEMs wanted Microsoft to help them sell some new devices (minimum requirements for Windows haven't been raised for the most part for 13 years. If your machine could run Windows 7, Windows 10 worked fine), and because the cancelled Windows 10X project (because every time Microsoft claims they've figured out how to compartmentalize Win32 apps they kill it internally) had a brand new sparkly interface that could be backported without a ton of extra work.

During a global chip shortage?

I believe 2025 deadline would be the best timing for this push because PC sales will decrease because many people/companies already bought PC in 2020-2022.

This just has the handwriting of somebody (or a few people) in charge that just wants to put "Launched a major windows version" on his resume to get another promotion:

- Rushed

- No quality

- Regressions

- Bugs

As you say, there is no apparent technical goal behind Windows 11.


The technical goal is to simplify the OS by dropping legacy hardware support and code for it, and only support machines with UEFI, TPM 2.0, AVX2, FMA3, and VT-x or AMD-V.

See this list of processors:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/min...

and this blog post:

https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2021/06/28/update-...

I can empathize. As a consumer, though, I'm not sure I like it. I've got a lot of machines on Windows 10 LTSC that will be looking for a new OS in 2029, that may or may not require a hardware replacement...


That makes sense at least. But at the same time: doesn't really mean anything if it does not result in increased quality or performance for us users. It probably only saves Microsoft money and time and that doesn't really mean anything for anyone but Microsoft.

I would welcome it if the freed resources were actually used to make Windows better for the user, but I doubt that will be the case.


I mean, it's 8 years from now. MacOS will have had 8 new releases by then, likely dropping support for any pre-2020 hardware and most pre-2023. It's hard to be grudgey about a 10-year lifespan for an OS, when even your mouse probably doesn't last that long.

This makes me wonder what use "Launched Windows Vista" would be as a line item on a resume.

I built a new computer around Windows Vista and it worked fine. Almost all the issues where related to users installing it on older systems that didn't have drivers (new driver model) or couldn't handle the graphics. Even considering the issues on older hardware, it still was better than the releases of 95/98/XP. Windows 7 didn't have as many issues since the driver model and hardware requirements were similar to Windows Vista. I really consider Windows 7 a Windows Vista Service Pack.

> Almost all the issues where related to users installing it on older systems that didn't have drivers (new driver model) or couldn't handle the graphics.

This is extremely revisionist. Microsoft did a two-tiered badging program for Vista: Vista Capable and Vista Ready. They originally only had a single tier: Vista Ready.

Vista Ready hardware had WDDM drivers, adequate RAM, and capable enough graphics to run Aero. Such hardware could run any version of Vista. Vista Capable badging was introduced later which meant the hardware could only really run Home Basic which didn't support Aero. This badging program was for hardware sold contemporaneously with Vista's lease.

Millions of Vista Capable machines were sold that were honestly barely able to run even the Home Basic version of the OS. OEMs ended up having to offer downgrades to XP because of Vista's performance problems. Out of the box it ran slower than XP on the same exact hardware. Lots of third party software ran slower on Vista vs XP.

Vista was a terrible release of Windows. People that had problems with it weren't just people with old hardware upgrading. If you ran it on a high end system you probably didn't run into many of its performance issues. It basically brute forces it's way to usability. For many millions of others Vista was a shit show.


I had always heard the prompt for Vista Capable was some specific Intel integrated-graphics chipset (915G? 845G?) which was flooding the market, but would never be Aero capable. Nobody wanted to write down the inventory, so they gave us a stupid badge.

On the other hand, Vista did provide a mass market platform that could be a great scapegoat for the 64-bit transition. Everyone needed new drivers anyway.

As I recall, the XP-64 product was basically a painted over Windows Server release that was basically a non-starter.


I don't even know how hard a project has to fail to make it an "unsuccessful launch".

Feels like launching something will always be seen as a positive. Or are there examples that say otherwise?


Forcing automatic updates on the users seems like an example of not being successful to me. Not allowing the users to disable that automatic update with a simple on/off type of options also seems like a failure.

Oh I can think of tons of failed launches from a technical/quality/user perspective. What I meant was the manager/executive lens.

Like at what point is launching anything ever seen as a negative because it seems even the people in charge of the biggest disasters seem to do fine afterwards and just move on to a job at the next megacorp no problem.


> I don't get why now they are calling it Windows 11?

It could just be a coincidence that macOS went from being version 10 to 11 last year, but it could very well not be.


> 6 years ago, with the release of Windows 10, it was all about "this is the last version of Windows!" and they went with the rolling release model. A little strange but they stuck with it for 6 years until suddenly this summer they announce Windows 11

Because in 2020, after many years at 10, macOS bumped its version up to 11. [1]

[1]: https://www.apple.com/macos/big-sur/


They were still bumping a number, but it was the minor version.

But regardless, no one ever really mentioned the numbers. There was a hard announcement of the new OSX/macOS version every year with a flashy new name, first cats, then California locations. I don't think anyone ever considered OSX a rolling release in the same way Windows 10 was.


And Debian is also on 11.

(GCC too, and, technically, X)


X11 is deprecated though.

I'm glad it's not an update to 10. I simply cannot fathom who at MS thought the taskbar "updates" (regressions) were viable. If they made this just an update to Windows 10, then I would have to be stuck on an old version, because something that I rely on is no longer working correctly.

I always figured they stuck with 10 because they wanted to change upgrade cycle/business model, and MacOS is stuck at 10 too so they won’t be “behind.”

Then we got MacOS 11 and, well, here we are.


99% of it is this I suspect. And the other 99% is a backlog of "breaking" changes they wanted to implement.

Yup, it makes total sense to me that apple went to 11 so microsoft also had to. Then they probably looked around to see what they could put in a windows 11 and bit off too much. The deadline likely was set in stone from the start, and that’s why it looks like a rush job.

The TPM and UEFI upgrade in base requirements led to a version fork. Nothing more.

"this is the last version of Windows!"

Fun fact: Microsoft never said this. Instead it was picked up by the media somehow and Microsoft simply chose never to correct anyone on it. My source is the Security Now podcast.


I'll grant this could be true, but like many I have clear memory of them saying this, and denying it now seems like a bad case of rewriting history in order to save a marginal bit of face. It's like how Bill Gates was never supposed to have said anything about 640K being enough for anyone. So what if he said it? He may be rich and famous, but does that mean he doesn't occasionally say something that seems rather silly in hindsight?

I'd respect them more if they just said "yeah, we said it would be the last one, but you know what... We reckon we can do better. This one goes to ELEVEN!"

There, that's your marketing done as well, Microsoft. So they changed their minds. Wow, it's almost like they're human beings or something! It wouldn't be nearly as noteworthy as denying it is already proving to be...


If it's anything like the last time then Bill Gates is going to have to answer questions about "10 ought to be enough for anybody" for decades.

But hasn't Bill not been in charge for like forever?

He still held an influential position on Microsoft's board until March 2020.

I like to make fun of Bill as much as the next anti-MS shill, but influential position on the board is not the same as writing the code with a 384k memory limit.

Also, how much influence do board members have on code of an OS anyways? All code must be written in Rust type of decisions. You must refactor these 10 lines into a function to be used later kind of decisions? That seems way too boots on the ground for a 30k' view type of position/job description.


Windows 11 purpose is to clear out legacy requirements so that MSFT can streamline development. Obviously they are running into some technical issues while doing this. Frankly, I’m not sure if this is a one-off, or they are just bad at building things cleanly.

Microsoft has plenty of problems, but I don't think anyone can seriously suggest they are bad at building things to last. They shoulder backwards compatibility to a degree that almost no other company would even consider.

Sorry if I wasn't clear - MSFT is absolutely phenomenal at backwards compatibility, and mad props to them for it.

My comment about "building things cleanly" is more about making a clean break from the past. It's not in their DNA, and since Windows 11 is doing that, I expect they'll hit some bumps in the road.

As for being a "one-off" issue was whether the bugs resulting from the clean break process are just a few, or if there is a whole host of issues that are about to crop up due to the big changes that have been made.

Windows 11 is technically simpler than 10[0], (not sure what the LOC counts are like though), but when changing/removing a bunch of things, I expect they will have issues. It's hard to do when your history is adding things for new features and keeping old code for compatibility - different process & different thinking.

[0] - I'm ignoring WSL here as a whole because I'm not familiar with the architecture yet.


Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, clean breaks like this are definitely new ground for them and you're right that growing pains wouldn't be shocking to see.

Windows 11 is indeed rushed. Since Apple released MacOS 11, Microsoft needs to release a new version as well. It's obvious[1] that Microsoft took the features made for Windows 10x and glued them into Windows 10.

[1]: https://twitter.com/vhanla/status/1434730813183209472


> It is a free upgrade for Windows 10 license holders (consumer anyway, not sure how it works for Enterprise?).

I'm using Windows 11 Enterprise and upgraded from Windows 10 Enterprise with no activation prompts etc. (VS/MSDN W10 Enterprise key from work)


So that they could get a lot more media attention compared to just another incremental release.

Well yes, it's as simple as that. It doesn't look like you're innovating if you don't change version numbers.

>it was all about "this is the last version of Windows!"

Supposedly that isn't something Microsoft actually said. A "random member of the press" started that.


Follow the money. I'm sure that they're revenue dropped since not producing new numbered versions of Windows. Now would be about the time a new version would be coming out. Windows 11 even if it's the same as what you'd get via updates would still mean that they can sell more new licenses and a bunch of upgrades, especially corporate ones down the line.

Think about it. Windows 10 with indefinite updates is like an iPhone with replaceable battery and ongoing iOS updates.

Apple was doing Mac OS X forever but then it went to 11 and soon 12 (in reality still Max OS X)

> I don't get why now they are calling it Windows 11

FOMO looking at Apple? I don't know.

Making it slightly whataboutism-ish, the same thing happened with Apple. When Apple transitioned from PoerPC to Intel, they kept 10.x because changing architectures kinda sorta wasn't a big deal for Apple. Same happened with 32bit -> 64bit transition. Same with HFS->APFS transition. It was no big deal.

With Mac OS 11 though? It's the same OS that is slowly circling down the drain after years of neglect. The only thing that is different is the new architecture. Which wasn't a big deal 15 years ago, and now for some reason it is.

Same thing at Microsoft? "We have to be seen as moving forward with a system we have no idea what to do about"?


MacOS 11

I think its to gain leverage on internal discussions and meetings. If you generate revenue, you are the defacto master of the product.

S/he who pays the bill will have his will.

The rolling release can not hide that Windows had internal architecture rot driven by those who paid the bills (add-tech & stasi-spy-department).


Well of course, that makes sense Windows 11 is an unfinished beta product, right? Wait, they went RTM? Four months after the first public insider builds? Without fixing most of the bugs/issues/complaints?

By the way, this comment is posted from Windows 11. Trust me when I tell you that this isn't ready for most of the general public. It is still for early adopters willing to suck up problems. I'd wait until March 2022 or more, and then see where it is at.

While they've made some positive moves forward UI wise, this still definitely feels like an insider build. I've had the DWM crash a few of times, requiring a hard reboot twice (even CTRL+ALT+Del or Win+Ctrl+Shift+B didn't work, while my mouse cursor still moved). That's more times than Windows 10's entire life.

Plus it is missing very "101"/polish features (e.g. just today I discovered that moving pinned start menu icons between pages was impossible, you have to move it to the start of the second page then delete icons from the first page).


I want to put everybody involved in the UI changes inside a cannon and shoot them into a sun. Seriously. Top left back button isn't flush with the edge and isn't an infinite button. Pure idiocy. Interacting with sound anything has become 10x worse and I want to strangle whoever removed the old volume mixer and made it impossible to cleanly switch audio devices over the icon. I want to waterboard whoever decided to remove the Task manager shortcut from the right-click menu of the Taskbar. It's near impossible to find the wifi security settings with how they're trying desperately to hide the classic interface without providing any way to do the same things I was able to before. after months of dealing with this shit and seeing none of it addressed, I've given up and I'm back on 10. Microsoft. What in the fuck. I was ready to give 11 a fair shot. I gave it more of a chance than it deserved. It made so many of my daily tasks harder and more tedious to do and I can't stand it. Interacting with 11 legit makes me angry.

I share in your frustration, I haven't migrated to Windows 11 but I noticed these challenges in Windows 10 starting the crop up. The half baked settings UI which when you actually get to the place you need to go is in the old settings UI anyway.

But if what you say is difficult in Windows 11, it's going to be a bumpy ride


> Win+Ctrl+Shift+B

First time I've heard of this shortcut - seems to reboot the video driver in case of any graphics glitches. May come in handy, thx!


>seems to reboot the video driver in case of any graphics glitches

sort of, but not really: https://superuser.com/a/1497556


I've had 0 problems *but I am working on very new hardware that the manufacturer already claims support for Win11.

I dislike the interface changes but I haven't liked changes since Windows 7 so I'm just in grumpy old man territory it seems.

What is the hardware configuration you're experiencing these problems on?


> What is the hardware configuration you're experiencing these problems on?

I'm on supported hardware too. 3700X/2070 Super. Completely vanilla system.


I'm on a 3900X/2080 Super and have had zero issues.

Did you in-place upgrade or clean install Windows 11?

> It is still for early adopters willing to suck up problems.

AKA suckers. Why do free beta testing for Microsoft?


ADHD aka is it New, Interesting, Challenging, or Urgent. It's new, interesting, challenging if you hit problems, and you can get in early.

It is a direction change and if you could run it in a VM on older hardware I would. The official launch ISO won't boot while a dev version from the week before launch loads up in Hyper V fine.


With Windows 10 updates, they made everyone a sucker. Updates that can lead to unbootable systems, loss of data, and hardware failure. We've seen it all.

I understand the taskbar changed, but last time i tried win11 i could not move it to the top, and it was not pinning the app icon to the containing screen and main screen.

Luckily I could revert to win10.


The taskbar isn't allowed to be moved from the bottom anymore, so that's to be expected.

This change floored me. I have so much horizontal space and much more limited vertical space. Let me move it to the side!

Microsoft continues the trend of "oh, you thought this was your machine? Nah, it's our machine"

I hope it'll be feasible to skip this version, as is tradition.

My understanding is that the majority of users aren't even able to upgrade currently. If your average user tries to upgrade from the Windows Update menu, they will just see if their computer is technically able to upgrade or not (based on CPU/TPM stuff I think). Even if it is, you won't be allowed or ping to upgrade until they deem your configuration viable. I am not by my home PC, but I think the messaging they give in the Windows Update page even says the upgrade should be available around spring of 2022.

So while Windows 11 is "out" right now, it seems to be for people on the windows insider program, and will be slowly rolled out to the public into next year.


I try to shoot for the 3rd gen/iteration, or later if possible. Windows 8.1 was great for me with a new laptop and Surface tablet. 10 has treated me well enough especially with the features still in the Pro version. 11 should be good to go next spring or summer.

I was burned by my first laptop, a lovely netbook with dGPU where the CPU hobbled everything you could drain the battery before finishing a level in Halo 2 PC. It took a few iterations for that low power CPU mobile gaming platform to balance out.


I read that the kernel has been in trial for a lot more, as it had been deployed to Windows 10 Insiders for almost a year; so they’ve “only” been testing the new shell. They already went RTM some time ago and made sure the OOBE would update the shell to the latest version.

And I mean that makes sense, because it's the shell changes that feel half finished.

Windows 10 is taking 3-4 minutes to log in, I've tried disabling startup services, but that didn't work, so reinstall is on the table... would you hop to Win 11 or reinstall Win 10?

How hard have you tried disabling services? My optimized win10 has 27 services set to Automatic start, and 33 RUNNING total, while fresh install is around 70 Automatic and ~100 running (with stupid shit like few xbox services for people never playing games, or handwriting recognition on a desktop). Then there are 140 Tasks enabled by default. Half of the stuff I had to disable didnt really want to be disabled and required playing with permissions or impersonating TrustedInstaller - Microsoft really wants that clipboard and hand writing telemetry uploaded regularly.

check how big your roaming home dir is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaming_user_profile#Profile_s... ) - sometimes applications tend to put a lot of stuff into this dir, which could end up slowing startup.

Note that this almost certainly isn't relevant unless you're on a corporate machine. I highly doubt that corporations are updating to windows 11 the month it's released.

Thanks, but this is a personal computer. Then again, I'm not sure I should rule out some kind of wacky involuntary cloud sync these days.

To rule it out, have you tried booting with your network disabled?

Try and enable verbose login and see where it gets "stuck"

https://community.spiceworks.com/how_to/132125-enable-verbos...

But yea if you have support for Win11, then why not clean install it anyway.


If you have to run Windows install Windows 10 LTSC. You can get a stripped down version with no ads and no store. It's the way windows should be out of the box.

go to task manager > startup and see if there's something there listed as having a high value in the "startup impact" column

To be honest that's how I felt about Windows 10 and most other Microsoft products.

How is this possible? Is it that Windows 11 is constantly running code and/or using data so that it consumes more of the L3 cache all the time? But only on AMD? Is this really a linear slowdown of cache speed as the article's wording implies, or is it some more complicated slowdown that they've benchmarked with something that intrinsically measures it linearly?

Problems with the thread migration to certain classes of CPUs I can kind of understand, that's still fairly new code for windows, but how it can slow down the L3 cache in the described way is a bit of a mystery to me.


Totally ignorant guess: sounds like they're invalidating too much sometimes, like having one core clear all the shared cache instead of just the lines it stepped on or something.

There's big hairy problems down in the tiny little details there that are easy to have come out and eat you.


This is the actual interesting question here. A simple constant slowdown seems physically impossible, and explanations which apply equally to Intel CPUs can presumably be discarded.

So I would guess, as the previous reply does, that it's probably somehow linked to the threading issue.


Not seen baby performance issues with this

I'm more completely put off by all the half baked UI decisions especially with the task bar and the explorer. They're really really bad. I hope updates will fix it. I don't mean "oh this is ugly" I mean "this feature I used to use is just gone or takes multiple clicks to use now"


Windows has been running an "every other one is good" process for a while. I think it may actually be causal; Microsoft has a "good windows", which lasts for 3-5 years, it gets overconfident internally as everyone just becomes accustomed to dominance and starts thinking it has a platform it can do something other than "be a good operating system" from, so it designs a piece of crap and gets humbled for a couple of years. So they take the time to make a good OS. Then repeat.

Windows 10 was a good windows. Not perfect, but it's been pretty good. I thought maybe we escaped from this cycle when they announced Windows 10 would be the last windows, but I've expected 11 to very likely be a pile of crap since I first heard it announced.

Windows 12 will be the one to look out for.

(They do have a platform they can do something other than "be a good operating system" from... it's just it rests on the foundation of having a good operating system. They seem to neglect their foundation every other major release.)


Is it actually a case of every other version being good, or is it a case of the market settling upon every other version? Nearly every version of Windows had its critics, yet the "bad" versions typically had such a short life those issues couldn't be address or users couldn't be accustomed to the changes, so the bad is what people tended to remember.

It’s only Me/Vista/8 that people didn’t like.

Me was just a buggy piece of trash, maybe it would have gotten fixed, but XP was around the corner. Speaking purely from personal experience—had a desktop running Me, it’s the only time I ever saw Explorer crash.

Vista’s actually a decent Windows. The changes to security that broke a bunch of apps and made pop-ups everywhere stuck around, they just got polished a bit in later Windows, it would have been fine if Vista had a longer life.

Windows 8 had the Metro UI and introduced a ton of misguided changes around the assumption that people will be using touch—changes which were often half-implemented at best, so even if you had a touchscreen (I developed for these), you had to constantly switch between the Metro and desktop interfaces. A lot of those changes got unwound in 8.1 and 10.

IMO the bad ones are Me and 8. Anything that fixed 8’s problems would have gotten a new version number.


In my memory also 98 was horribly unstable until 98 SE.

Early XP was also a horrible experience. If you installed an early version Windows XP and connected to the internet to update, you might get malware from remote vulnerabilities before the updates finished downloading.

likewise w/ 95 osr2. To me 8.1 is the better version - no telemetry junk compared to 10.

Probably a bit of both. The market settles on a version that's "good enough" and it gets patched until it's "good". But Windows 8 was around for quite a while, and never got to be particularly good.

10 became good over time. 8 was crap, and stayed crap with 8.1. 7 became good over time. Vista was crap. XP became good over time.


I disagree. I think that makes sense as a hindsight view, but at the time, the good version of Windows generally started good, and the bad versions were generally bad out of the gate too.

By "good" I don't mean perfect. But Windows 95 was good, 98 was good, XP was amazing compared to what there was at the time, 7 was good, and 10 was good. Vista was immediately a bomb from the moment I first saw its desktop that looked like a not even particularly good Linux desktop theme [1]. ME was a buggy mess from start to finish. 8 wasn't as much of a disaster but the whole attempt to merge tablet UI and desktop UI was just fundamentally flawed.

Windows being Windows I'm sure tons of people can pop up with stories about how their first install of XP ate their entire hard drive and also killed their dog, but generally I think it's pretty obvious pretty quickly which way a version of Windows is going to go.

One of the major markers of a bad version of Windows is that it's made for Microsoft's needs and not the users. If another comment in this discussion is accurate and Windows 11 is primarily so they can dump a lot of hardware, dump old booting code for non-UEFI boots, etc., then that suggests to me they don't have a strong through-line on what the value for the user is, which is going to lead to sadness. Even though those goals are good and ultimately even necessary in the long haul, that's not going to be a set of requirements that leads to a good Windows.

[1]: This one floors me to this day. Like, I don't really have a lot of visual taste and I've run some pretty awful Linux desktop themes back in my younger years for a period of time. My current desktop is a tiling WM and so utilitarian it burns to look at for most people. And that Vista desktop... yeowzers! It was like they pulled a random theme off of a desktop theming site and they got babbies first uploaded theme.


I found Vista to be a huge improvement over the Windows XP Playskool look. I couldn't stand seeing those awful colors and huge bubbly look for all those years... Thankfully you could change the theme to classic, but nobody else did. So it was still everywhere.

Also custom Visual Styles were popular only in XP era. Maybe people satisfied with Win7 default.

The Silver theme was a good balance between moderness and the industrial design.

Let's not forget that for a while it was almost impossible to install Windows XP while connected to the internet. You'd get infected with Code Red. The security was an existential threat to Windows back then.

Windows 2000 came before XP and was as good imo.


In my recollection, 98SE was good. 98 was very unstable, I think because of (usb?) driver issues?

Windows 10 started off pretty funky. I was using it before RTM. The updates afterwards made it the solid OS that it is now.

7 was much better than XP, but 10 is much worse than 7, so I'm not sure if I'm ready for a 12 that is much worse than 10.

I'm not updating until they bring back taskbar ungrouping. Not interested in adding more clicks/reducing button size for something as important as switching between windows...

Oh no, they finally did it. I feel like Windows has some kind of fascination with taskbar grouping, every new version you have to specifically shut it off. They've finally gone and removed the choice. There is nothing in windows that annoys me more than taskbar grouping, I don't even have a rational basis for it, it just immediately annoys me when I see it.

It's not irrational IMO, it's a hassle in several ways compared to the "classic" behavior.

I honestly can't fathom for the life of me why taskbar grouping is even the default, or what problem it was supposed to solve. It is a terrible UI pattern.

I suspect every person that is aware of the option to revert has reverted, but a lot of people are used to deal with defaults and just don't want to waste energy fighting their OS and research stuff like that...

Exactly. The central menu is a good idea for ultrawide monitors, but forcing grouping seems to go a step backwards, especially if you cannot move the taskbar and you're on said ultrawide monitor.

I think the UI decisions make perfect sense if you consider using your PC like it's a giant phone.

Why would I EVER even want that? Windows on phones is dead and tablets/hybrids are perfectly able to display the regular UI in a usable way.

Nobody sane would, but this taskbar rewrite was started for Windows 10x and that was the modus operandi for it. Then during yet another fundamental internal change in direction it got foisted on the desktop OS, and then they got told to ship it six months before it was finished, so we've ended up with this mess.

Except for not being able to move the taskbar location I find the UI to generally be an improvement. As for explorer I find the UI to be a great improvement from Windows 10.

Completely disagree on both counts. The desktop peek feature is gone which I used regularly to look at stats on my desktop widgets. Right clicking the taskbar has removed all the previous options and now only shows settings. I used that to open task manager with 2 clicks and it had a much larger surface area than just the start button. The non-optional grouping is just completely terrible. Not having an option to keep the taskbar on the edges is awful. The start menu has removed all grouping options and is now far less useful than it was. The new quick access bar doesn't show you the volume unless you hover over it

Explorer has completely made the right click useless that had a lot of utilities I used and now it takes 2 clicks to access them. The icons are fine but they removed all customisation like adding images to the icons which I used for improved readability

All this and it's not even consistent. The windows defender screen is still the old one. The eject disk menu is as old as windows 7. The improvements are inconsistent and as a result, extremely ugly to me. Also you can't even see seconds on the time. Basic crap like this is missing. Why...


Desktop peek is now a three finger swipe down and up on your trackpad.

I don't use Windows on a laptop

I know it's a little petty, however not being able to move the taskbar has zeroed out any interest I had in using Windows 11. I'm a huge fan of moving the taskbar/dock to the left vertical side of the screen, especially so on a 16:9 screen.

It isn't petty, it is indicative of an incompetent development team. We have been able to move the taskbar since Windows 95, but apparently whoever Microsoft hires to work on Windows UI these days can't figure it out. Lord knows what else those yahoos have fucked up.

Probably some "yagni" Scrum master/PO aggressivly cutting corners in the planning phase to save story points, but on the end adding work for removing the feuture from the old code.

I would bet more on a standard a 49" 5120x1440 monitor and they didn't even realize the need of that basic productive feature.

Yeah I do the same. Can't believe it's not possible in 11.

Someone will probably make a quick fix that returns tat functionality heh


I've recently embraced my petty little self dinking around with Manjaro Sway.

Changing a line in a config file to put the waybar anywhere I please, and storing that config file in a dotfiles repo so that the next time I need to set up a machine. Bliss.


If you do a lot via right click they nuked it, but you can add it back in. The fact that I can't right click the taskbar to open Task Manager without getting that horrible full screen "LOG OUT/SHUTDOWN/OPEN TASK MANAGER" thing is my biggest frustration. I'm opening the taskbar because I'm getting poor performance, don't make me take multiple steps to do it.

Not to mention I had no idea what the right click icons meant when I first starting using it, is that copy? Is that paste?


Does Ctrl+Shift+Esc still open task manager directly?

Yes.

You can right click on the start menu and get (most of?) the old menu

Same. Don’t get the hate for the new UI. It’s quite nice now that I’ve gotten used to it and given I often use 10 and 11 side by side I now quite prefer 11.

But at least Windows 11 brings family and friends together with new Teams integration in OS. So all is forgiven.

I have seen nothing but people ripshit that this isn't actual Teams, and so they can't log in to their work or school Teams tenants which they actually need to use.

It's like the completely self-inflicted footgunning that they already committed a few years ago when they bought Skype and then immediately renamed their not-compatible enterprise chat system Skype for Business.


TO be fair may be it is Microsoft's subtle way of telling that Office or School colleagues are just that and not family or friends.

Windows 11 fixes exactly zero of my problems and creates several new ones. Wake me up when the Windows Update team stops testing on VMs instead of actual hardware.

When it comes to OSes, I want them to stop screwing with it.

No one uses a computer to stare at OS UI design. No one cares about your new taskbar.

I want to start Windows up, launch my applications and not crash.

Give me security and performance fixes without messes with what works


It sounds like they implemented some Spectre/Meltdown type security feature involving cache invalidation that are 'currently' unnecessary for AMD. For some reason none of the articles make it clear if it's only seen on Zen 1/2 or if Zen 3 is affected since the memory topology of Zen 2 has caused issues in the past.

This is quite bad considering how Microsoft was upfront about Windows 11 being better designed for Intel's Alder Lake CPUs which have two distinct core types. So it's incredibly weird that Windows 11 would interfere with AMD's preferred core technology since it's comparatively normal. It's pretty obvious that regression testing on AMD platforms just wasn't done.


Ok so I may be a rare exception but I have a laptop with a Ryzen 7 4800 CPU and an Nvidia GPU GTX1650Ti and honestly I'm having a better experience on Windows 11 compared to Windows 10.

Before upgrading to Windows 11, I had all kinds of problems with Windows 10.

- When I a turned on the computer it took longer to log into Windows.

- Apps would open more slowly sometimes I would even have bugs with the Xbox app lagging.

- When I put my computer to sleep by shuting the laptop's lid and come back later sometimes the laptop wouldn't even turn the screen on and I had to forcefully shut it down.


Every fresh install feels better the first few days. It's possible you'd have the same gains with a fresh W10 install?

I bought my laptop only 4-6 months ago and it was a fresh W10 install.

Meanwhile I can't even upgrade from Windows 10 20H2, which I dual boot with Arch Linux, to 21H1. I get a useless and unhelpful error message and then the update rolls itself back.

Microsoft have been seriously failing on the Windows Update front for decades.


I upgraded an 11 year old laptop (1st gen Intel Core, no UEFI, no TPM) no problem.

It's unsupported but works just fine. The trick on how to do it is embarrassingly simple. Just download both the Windows 10 and Windows 11 ISOs, replace the "install.wim" in the Windows 10 ISO with the one from the Windows 11 ISO (it's conveniently the same file name) and run the setup.

The upgrade works just fine since the Windows 10 installer doesn't check for supported hardware, TPM or secure boot.

Really goes to show how all that TPM, secure boot and CPU support business is just a marketing ploy to increase hardware sales...


I'm talking about upgrading Windows 10 to Windows 10

> I'm talking about upgrading Windows 10 to Windows 10

I assume you meant Windows 10 to Windows 11? Because that's exactly what I described. The setup on the Windows 10 ISO (once you replaced the "install.wim" with the Window 11 file) will perform an in-place upgrade. All programs, data and settings are preserved.


No, GP means upgrading from one Win10 release to the next. 20H2[1] to 21H1[2].

1 - https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/whats-new...

2 - https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/whats-new...


Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, I ran into almost similar problem you described, tried all kind of debugging tools and such to fix problem. In the end I remember some link took me to Windows download website. From there it just downloaded this new H2 release and installed without problem.

Me too. Human readable error messages sure would be nice. Instead the PC just does it's own thing instead of restarting and being there when I need it.

Did you remove edge by chance? I had an update some time ago that rolled itself back because edge not being present on the system was not a handled edge case.

You're better off skipping every other version of Windows and it seems to still hold true..

Windows NT good

Windows 98 bad

Windows 2000 good

Windows Me bad

Windows XP good

Windows Vista bad

Windows 7 good

Windows 8 bad

Windows 10 good

Windows 11 bad


Making generalized statements and lists like this is only possible if you selectively ignore versions.

From the Windows 3.11 to Windows ME/2000 era there where the DOS and NT kernel editions, both available at the same time.

I believe the missing Windows 98 SE was generally considered good, and the version many people kept using while XP was popular.

XP was not considered good at first, but had substantial improvements in SP2 and SP3.

Windows 8.1 didn't leave much of an impression, but was pretty workable.


Windows 10 has steadily gotten worse.

I booted into Windows for the first time in a while a few days ago. I was reminded that last time I logged out I was forced to install an upgrade.

I was met with a screen forcing me to connect my user account with my Microsoft account. No way out of the process. I didn't know the password to my Microsoft account since I never use it for anything. I couldn't reset the password because my computer was locked and demanding a Microsoft account. I don't have any email access on my phone because it's so hard to secure. Had to shut down the computer and boot into Debian to reset my Microsoft password. Then I booted back into Windows, signed in, went into the control panel and signed out again.

What the actual fuck. Who thought this process was a good idea?


Argh, I hate to nerdsnipe like this:

Windows 3.0 Good (and made windows commercially successful)

Windows 3.1 Good

Windows 95 Good

Windows 98 Bad

Windows 98SE Good

Windows ME Very Bad (they removed DOS mode for god sake!)

Windows 2000 Good

Windows XP Good

Windows Vista Bad

Windows 7 Good

Windows 8 Bad

Windows 8.1 Mixed

Windows 10 Good

Windows 11 Bad

Seems very tick-tocky but there are exceptions.


Windows 7 was basically Vista with a few service packs, and Vista wasn't really that bad. Once the rough edges were off and it was renamed "Windows 7" it was liked well enough.

Vista->7 was certainly a smaller change than XP->Vista but more than service pack level. For instance, one big one is that DWM in Vista keeps a copy of each window (at least old GDI windows, maybe not DirectX ones) in both CPU and GPU memory, which both consumes unnecessary space and generally slows rendering down. In Windows 7, they're only on the GPU.

It's a classic example of something changing significantly under the hood but not being very visually obvious.


Seems like a cherry pick. Was the difference between 98 and 98SE larger than between XP and XP SP and SP2 which are not included?

I always jokingly called windows 7 vista service pack 3. Vista added in windows defender, really ramped up how aggressive superfetch was, and search indexing. Turn those 3 things off and vista worked decently as it was too much for most CPUs/HD of the time. They fixed most of that in sp2 of vista. But win7 is when everyone really got most of the fixes. One dude I know managed to 'fix' Windows ME. He figured out it was the plug and play system aggressively scanning the inf files. He narrowed them down to just the ones that were needed for his hardware and it worked pretty good for him.

You needed an upgrade CD ordered from Microsoft to update, so I count those.

if 98SE was a service pack it would be the largest feature increase in a service pack of any Windows service pack, iirc it brought native USB printer+storage support and firewire support to the OS.

Though I was a kid at the time (barely 10 years old), I just remember 98 and 98SE disks floating about and people not upgrading their windows 95 machines until SE came out.


The wisdom used to be to wait a couple of service packs before installing a new version of windows. It seems that is still true. Windows 2000 was quite usable a few service packs in. Windows XP took a few as well to become usable.

ME was the last version of the Dos based windows versions. Versions 1 and 2 most people barely remember. Version 3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 were pretty close together and the first versions that were more widely used. Then windows 95 was obviously the big one in that series but quite buggy as well initially thus necessitating service packs. 98 and 98SE were relatively minor upgrades to that and thus quite alright. ME was an attempt to bridge the gap to the much delayed XP and as such quite pointless since it was buggy and would have also included a lot of misguided stuff around internet explorer that has since been long forgotten and that obviously was omitted for XP. Somehow MS got into their heads that the browser was the OS, which in MS land meant stuff like active desktop, which as I recall was horribly slow even if you could get to run it at all (no in my case). And when you did there was a "and now what ... " moment as well.

XP was the successor to Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, and 2000 Each of which were pretty OK. To complicate things further they started doing separate releases for servers as well from 3.1. I use NT 3.1 for development work at some point. Pretty nice machine as I remember. Never gave me much trouble.

XP was where they cut loose from DOS mostly and by then nobody, including MS, had appetite for yet more releases. So, they doubled down with service packs and fixed bugs only for quite a few years. Nevertheless, in terms of stability XP was a huge upgrade from the dos based varieties in terms of stability which is why people remember it fondly. But especially before service pack 2, many people were sticking with windows 2000 in companies. I had a nice windows 2000 desktop for quite some time at work.

By the time they released Vista, it was so horrible that many opted to not upgrade since there was no big need. Especially enterprises said thanks but no thanks and kept on defaulting to XP right until MS pulled the plug on that many years later. They had the same issue with windows 7 and 8. Which is why they made windows 10 a longer term thing and made an effort to get companies upgrading. I predict that this will be an issue with windows 11 as well. Most enterprises like uniform environments and they don't want to have to support multiple versions of windows. So, windows 10 is going to be here for a while.


If you count 98SE, you should also count 8.1 and then it doesnt work anymore as well :)

Touche,

however I'm not sure if 8.1 really bucks the trend, Wikipedia says reception was negative/mixed.


about 8.1 - I suppose it was mostly inertia. To this day - it's better than 10's pushed ads, telemetry, xbox(!?), and misguided control panel.

It's effectively 10 minus DirectX12


95 was pretty terrible, before osr2 - but I guess few have experienced that.

You also missed Windows 3.11, which I recall was good (not sure where Windows For Workgroups fits in...)

Windows 10 is only good compared to Windows 8. The terrible product decisions are all still there, if slightly more hidden.

This listing makes no sense. Some of these operating systems were targeted at completely different markets and shouldn't be lumped together. Also you have lumped all the versions of Windows NT together as one operating system when there were 4 different versions of Windows NT. Windows 95 came after 3 of those versions had been released but doesn't appear on this list at all. Also Windows 98 is not generally considered a bad operating system for the time.

I lumped them together according to Microsoft versioning. I only named the Windows i've used as a consumer (hence no 2003). Following just the initial release of the major versions it holds. I know 8.1 is a completely different OS to 8, but according to Microsoft it's not :)

Most Windows were fixed later though with service packs etc. So this list should be taken with a grain of salt of course


Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 1, good

Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 2, bad

Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 3, good

Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 4, bad

Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 5, good

Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6, bad

Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 6a, less bad


You are leaving out Windows NT 3.1, 3.5 and 3.51.

Thats probably for the best.

Unfortunately modern Windows is a goodbad pile of everything that came before. You still have to hack the registry for certain problems.

Where does 95 / 98se fit into that?

(more seriously, iirc NT/2k were a substantially different codebase which got merged with the 95/98/me line to produce XP)


You dare smear the good name of Windows 98 sir?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: