The Microsoft devs have time to do shit like this, but haven't yet gotten the Settings screen as functional as Control Panel was two decades ago...
Do NOT blame the devs for this. They are not the ones to decide the direction of the product or the priority of the tickets they work. Blame upper management for making these poor decisions and the product managers for being spineless and not pushing back.
But Steve Ballmer told me "Developers Developers Developers Developers"
Are you saying that was a lie?
Maybe they are pushing back, which is why Control Panel still exists?
Meanwhile the new settings panel is telling me my network is private while control panel and network share settings tell me it's domain authenticated.
You overestimate the agency of a developer.
I really hate having the taskbar permanently affixed to the bottom of my screen. I've had it on the left side for decades now. They are really throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Someone at Microsoft "Customization is the enemy of progress!"
I’m on 10 and been a top taskbar guy for years. Are you saying 11 forces you to have taskbar only on bottom?
Correct
Welp fuck. Guess I’ll start looking at Linux but every company I’ve worked for in the past 10 years is ALL Microsoft all the way
In Win98 we were able to put the taskbar anywhere natively and even could split those quick launch toolbars out of it and put it on another side by itself. I can't believe MS is constantly removing features. I'm a Linux user for decades now, but I still also use Windows at work and it's always bothered me MS re-invents the wheel so often and every time the wheel looks a bit more like a rectangle.
The taskbar was movable since it was first introduced in Win95. I’ve always had a top taskbar, and will continue to do so in Linux.
Why? Why even fucking do this? What do they get? And why is their default ux so aggressively terrible?
They want you to use the search instead of a functional interface. That's why they keep making the interface worse.
It lets them spy on you through bing, allows them to fill the results with ads, and lets them hide system applications unless you know exactly how to find them.
It's also them gearing up towards funneling the entire UX through copilot for largely the same reasons.
The entire goal is to flip the operating system from the slave of the user to the master of the content.
As to how rationales go, this is the clearest.
I hate it.
The fact that windows is now becoming Apple 2.0 is kinda crazy ngl lol, thought shouldn’t be surprising cuz every tech company is now doing enshittification at this point.
And yet they're not even becoming apple in the areas where apple does well - UX consistency, battery optimisations, a reasonably well-curated app store, etc
who the hell needs an app store on PC?
Linux does a centralized, curated software repository with support for updates and it's loved.
Windows does a centralized, curated software repository with support for updates and people question why it's needed.
That's because the windows one came a decade+ too late, has a bunch of restrictions (particularly at launch when you couldn't even put desktop apps in it), and generally doesn't fit with the ecosystem. One of the reason Linux package managers are loved is it is a one-stop-shop for all app and OS updates. The Microsoft Store doesn't do that, nor can you add third party repositories to it (like you can in Linux) in order to attempt to make it a one-stop-shop.
A big hint here is it's called the Microsoft Store. It doesn't perform the same function or achieve the same goals as a Linux package manager. And that is on purpose.
I mean, there's lots of things in OSes that you don't need but are very useful to have. I love having access to Paint when I use Windows, but it's certainly not a hard OS requirement.
I imagine you're reeling at the idea of an app store on PC primarily because you know the Microsoft store to be absolute dog shit, and you'd be right, because it's a steaming turd. It's full of crap, fraudulent paid copies of open source software, outdated software because the dev hasn't bothered to update the WinStore listing, etc.
If you look over at the Linux world and installing apps is generally as simple as: open the software centre, search for software, press the install button, you're done. Updates will be done either manually or automatically through the software centre, for all of your apps.
Now, contrast that with what people actually do on Windows (because they sure as fuck aren't using the MS store): open your web browser (hey btw we noticed you're not using Edge, do you want to switch???), search for the software, make sure to click the link to the correct website (which isn't always obvious if you don't know the developer name), navigate to the download page, select Windows [version] x86_64, open your downloads folder, run the installer with admin permissions, go through an installer, delete the installer file, delete the shortcut it added to your desktop. Updates will be handled by an updater service for each individual app and most love to start running immediately after booting your machine.
A better app store is absolutely something Microsoft should be looking into
One tech company said "Hey, I can see the bottom!" and every other tech company replied "Race you there!"
They're not exactly "being blocked" but rather the legacy ability to tell explorer.exe to load the older style Taskbar, which those apps load then modify, is going away. I'm not defending this nor do I like it, but it would be like saying some Linux distro is BLOCKING customization because some legacy app dependent on Xorg will not work after they switch to Wayland.
They’re not exactly “being blocked”
Simply renaming the executable works to re-enable Start All Back. They are being intentionally blocked by Microsoft.
Like in the case of StartAllBack, you can bypass the block by simply renaming the executable to something else. If you want to upgrade to a newer build, delete the app, update your system, and then launch it using a renamed executable.
Not if you're using the preview build, where the entire functionality is removed. The warning is just a preemptive preparation for beta users. The bottom of the article indirectly mentions this.
But sure, downvote me.
A Microsoft representative (?) opened an issue for Explorer Patcher:
Hi Team,
This is to let you know that Win10 taskbar code is removed. And if use continue to use ExplorePatcheron Windows GE Build, they will see a crash. You only need to adjust the setup exe name to get around the block in your new version. We will continue to block ANY version that crashes Explorer.
Please let me know if you have any question.
Thanks Michelle
Makes sense to me.
Good news hidden in the article:
Like in the case of StartAllBack, you can bypass the block by simply renaming the executable to something else. If you want to upgrade to a newer build, delete the app, update your system, and then launch it using a renamed executable.
@OP: People who are modifying Windows this deeply are not going to switch to Linux. If you're going through this much trouble, you've already tried Linux several times and left disillusioned every time. Linux does not compete with Windows as a desktop operating system and I doubt it ever will. It simply does not offer the compatibility and ease of use (including for power users) that Windows - for all its faults - has.
People who are modifying Windows this deeply are not going to switch to Linux
Yeah. Not just to avoid a quick file rename.
Although, I started out as someone who modified Windows that deeply, and I ended up on Linux.
One of my reasons for switching was when my favorite Windows mod stopped working, and there was no recourse.
This sounds like it goes beyond that and the Windows team is actively pushing modders out?
I think this will have an effect, and we will get more migrations.
Yep, Microsoft is also blocking some github scripts for disabling telemetry,etc. They are just making it worse for themselves
Anyone could just as easily say:
Windows does not compete with macOS as a desktop operating system and I doubt it ever will. It simply does not offer the compatibility and ease of use (including for power users) that macOS - for all its faults - has.
Windows isn't compatible with Final Cut Pro, has a lackluster implementation of Adobe Photoshop comparatively, and has no support for common cli shells such as bash or zsh (without creating an emulated subsystem ala Cygwin or WSL). Setting up a Windows desktop for my day-to-day tasks is a huge pain as opposed to macOS or a Linux-based desktop OS.
Why is Microsoft even deciding what programs I can run on my computer in the first place? They're not malware, they shouldn't be doing this at all.
It's the Windows Defender component. Blocking things that interfere with your computer is literally what it was designed and intended to do.
Why is Microsoft trying to shoot itself in the foot once again? One of the big reasons I like Windows more than MacOS is the customizability. When your market share is declining, you shouldn't add more reasons to switch to something else.
Wow, now I'm really glad I switched to Linux. Windows? Never again.
Fixed that headline for ya, big guy.
The irony is that people create these tools mostly because they're frustrated by the limited customisation options provided by default. If Microsoft ever listens to feedback, it's quite limited, and it takes ages for the new stuff get implemented; moreover very often you just about get used to something and the rug gets pulled from under your feet.
I still can't believe Linux only have 5% of OS market share
I can. Do you really think computer savvy people are the majority of computer users?
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
