←back to thread

Windows needs to stop showing tabloid news

(www.tomshardware.com)
1725 points taubek | 3 comments | 27 Mar 23 05:20 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
PrimeMcFly ◴[27 Mar 23 06:33 UTC] No.35323525[source]▶
I don't want anything, any type of news being pushed by my OS. It simply isn't it's job. Maybe, as an option or optional add-on, but not the way MS does it.

I use 10 now, as locked down and 'fixed' as I was able to make it (custom ISO via NTLite with a bunch of crap removed and some fixes steamrolled in), but really I look forward to ditching it altogether - which is a shame. For all the MS hate in the OSS community, I always thought Windows did a lot of stuff well (when it was good at least).

The telemetry, changing things for the sake of changing things and forced crap constantly being added is enough. I'm so in love with awesomewm at this point, and the fact that I can customize and program every part of my UI, allowing me to have something absolutely perfect and tailor made.

replies(16): >>35324087 #>>35324818 #>>35325430 #>>35325765 #>>35326431 #>>35326762 #>>35326805 #>>35326810 #>>35327156 #>>35327165 #>>35328629 #>>35329259 #>>35331531 #>>35331556 #>>35332516 #>>35333868 #
jgaa ◴[27 Mar 23 10:10 UTC] No.35324818[source]▶
> I don't want anything, any type of news being pushed by my OS.

Then, how is Microsoft supposed to properly track your interests and sell that information to their "partners"?

It's been a long time since Microsoft made an operating system. What they make today is basically a spyware-platform where you can run applications if you are really disciplined and persistent. I don't understand how people keep up with it.

I've used Linux on my desktops and laptops for decades now.

replies(11): >>35325002 #>>35325044 #>>35325173 #>>35325246 #>>35325744 #>>35326652 #>>35326676 #>>35328196 #>>35329073 #>>35342285 #>>35351138 #
throwawaaarrgh ◴[27 Mar 23 13:49 UTC] No.35326652[source]▶
I've used a Linux desktop for decades and I'm sick of it. My Windows machine never bricks itself on updates. All my hardware works with it. Getting something as basic as Bluetooth or 3D rendering working doesn't require a PhD. I don't have to replace half the GUI apps when suddenly Microsoft decides to redesign its whole UI layer for philosophical engineering reasons.

I can rebuild an engine, but I pay a mechanic to do it. I don't buy cars as pet projects. I just want to drive the goddamn thing.

I would pay the NSA money in addition to letting them spy on me if I could just have a working fucking computer.

replies(5): >>35326961 #>>35326974 #>>35327390 #>>35329060 #>>35329799 #
blibble ◴[27 Mar 23 14:17 UTC] No.35326961[source]▶
> I don't have to replace half the GUI apps when suddenly Microsoft decides to redesign its whole UI layer for philosophical engineering reasons.

have you used Windows in the last 20 years?

replies(2): >>35327109 #>>35327305 #
1. lukevp ◴[27 Mar 23 14:43 UTC] No.35327305[source]▶
“Have to update” is the key here. You can still run apps from windows 95 if you want to.
replies(1): >>35327715 #
2. blibble ◴[27 Mar 23 15:10 UTC] No.35327715[source]▶
I can run X applications from the 80s on Wayland

meanwhile Windows 11 has 4 or 5 different UI styles in control panel

replies(1): >>35328789 #
3. asveikau ◴[27 Mar 23 16:33 UTC] No.35328789[source]▶
I don't run Wayland, but a few times per year I find myself picking up some unmaintained X thing and running it with a recent OS. I'd say on average compatibility is much better on Windows.

Binary compatibility on Linux is often out of the question. Frequently this means picking up some old libs. libc5, old stdc++... For really old stuff with fewer dependencies that may not be a problem. As you get into a more modern era where software started to pile on large heaps of dependencies it becomes more challenging.

Source compatibility typically means porting, sometimes nontrivial. Likely something is written in a time capsule of that era's poor C and C++ standards compliance. (i.e. C89 or C++98 existed, but compilers of the day accepted lots of nonsense, so software of that era doesn't even conform to those.)

In contrast the Win32 API or COM is designed around binary compatibility. Maybe early 2000s dependencies (when MS started getting worse at this) are a problem. I think Win16 on modern amd64 is also a problem. But on average, compatibility is higher.