You raise a serious point, oft discussed here (about the sorry state of the OS)
I actually think the "whimsical", nostalgia these kind of apps (toys?) point to is actually indicative of a more serious "yearning" for simpler, higher quality, more user-configurable computing. As it was not so long ago ...
> Woah woah woah. You’re saying that the majority of computer users treat their OS as a tool to run the software they care about and let the platform get out of the way and you’re looking down on them? That’s literally all an OS is for. Everything else is fangirling.
No.
I'm saying that the software doesn't take full advantage of the tool people have bought, -to use a similarly bad analogy- like forcing them to use their motorized screwdriver without using the motor by instead by twisting it around like a classic hand operated one because that is the approach that works on all screwdrivers.
> does anyone else feel sad that their operating system has effectively turned into some weird social media marketing tracking data harvesting hybrid of a thing?
I'm just surprised it took them this long tbh. Windows used to set the standard for enshittification. Now that they're chasing cloud-based windows, I see they're returning to form.
> Would you prefer if Windows worked like iOS where there are serious limitations on what apps can do in the background and where every application has to go through a central authority for vetting?
I've thought about this for a while, and honestly, for desktops/notebooks/tablets? Yes. Maybe not just one App Store like iOS, but at least sandbox all possible non-os code similarly to ChromeOS, in a way that's on by default and requires a boot-time flag to disable (and users should be allowed to do this, but OEMs shouldn't.)
Recently my dad bought a new $300 toshiba laptop because his old machine was just "slow", as in he had so much spyware on his computer that it was easier to just buy a new one than going through the hassle of cleaning up his old one. Even though his old laptop was perfectly good and of a recent hardware generation.
I'm 100% positive he's going to have the same issues on his new laptop, and his response was that he uses his iPad so much that it doesn't matter anyway.
The role of the modern day OS has changed immensely over the years. Nowadays there's simply no reason for legitimate applications to have the level of access to the underlying system that they used to have. Apps really don't need arbitrary filesystem access. They don't need to be able to overwrite core system files. They should be run in a sandbox or a container with as restricted of a set of permissions as possible.
For servers and development workstations the story is a little bit different, but those are exceptions to the rule, and with the proper release hatches like boot-time enabling of un-sandboxed code it's a good tradeoff IMO.
> For me using elementary OS for a bit was truly awful: its UX was the worst I ever used.
100% agree. When I tried to use it a long while ago, it was not good. UI felt clunky and almost unresponsive when compared to similar desktop environments.
> The best thing good OS can do for me, is not to get in my way when I run apps
This has always been my complaint about Windows.
I've long considered the OS as a tool to launch my apps ONLY!. That's it!
Of course, under the surface there are a few more things that it needs to perform like not corrupting my data, being secure and protecting me from attacks and so on but it's purpose is a toolbox.
Carpenters don't use their toolbox to build furniture. They use the tools in it. That's what the the OS is to me: a toolbox that holds my tools.
When it starts giving me shit for not using a Microsoft account or trying to "help me with that thing" that pisses me off.
However, the worst thing is when shit moves around, menus change etc.
> Windows 10 is awesome.. the experiment with "ads" sucks but its all tweakable.
I don't want to have to tweak my fucking operating system to remove ads!! Also, I think we're asking too much of the average user. It's not obvious how to do most of the tweaks, so your random older/casual user won't do them, or maybe even realize that such a thing might be possible and go off to look up how to do it. They're more likely to just turn off updates.
>I am still awe at how bad MS is at making Windows apps.
They've gotten better at being bad. Before, apps crashed but at least they were full featured, had two or three ways of doing the same thing - so you could get shit done.
Now, stuff from MS is generally slower, still crash prone, looks fancy but is bare-boned, updates remove the few useful stuff and replace em with half baked alternatives or nothing.
> Telemetry? can be stopped and blocked and there are tools and services to do this. In Next DNS, Google and Apple have as much, if not more telemetry per device.
It can be reduced, possibly stopped, by adding third-party tools. That you need extra tools is unacceptable. And again, Apple and Google also doing bad stuff is very much not an excuse.
> they are easy to install, can be updated automatically, they are easy to uninstall
I generally don't have problems with any of those things.
> they are more controlled than Win32 apps
Not necessarily a good thing for power users.
> and they run sandboxed, so they are more secure.
Already got my own solution for this.
> If a ModernUI app does what you need, it would be sensible to run the app rather than a traditional desktop program.
That's what I'm saying. In my experience they generally are inferior to most desktop applications that already exist and are far more powerful and featureful. It's been this way since Windows 8 debuted the Windows Store.
If at some point in the future that changes then I'll consider switching over to them properly. Until then, I'll stick with Win32 programs that are...well, better in both UI (in my opinion, they are easier to navigate) and features.
ModernUI apps are just Microsoft's foray into the walled garden ecosystem. I can't blame them for doing it this way, there is a lot of money to be made and Apple and Google are both doing it so they run the risk of being left behind.
I still like control over how my operating system and the applications on it run though. I'm not an error-prone casual user. I don't need the use of my OS and programs dictated to me., nor do I like my applications to be delivered through a single vendor-controlled portal.
> People using OSS software taking it for granted that the UX is going to be subpar...
After using the abomination known as Windows 11, I'd argue that the UX of Linux is well beyond par, especially when par for Windows 11 is showing Microsoft ads at you while you're using almost every application.
> * Telemetry and ads embedded in the apps and the operating system
I imagine you're talking about Windows. It's annoying but for an experienced Windows user it's a 10 minute set up to get rid of them when you install the OS and at most another 5-10 minutes when you upgrade the OS.
> * Upgrade costs
Windows 10 upgrades are free :-)
> * Abandonware
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. Apple tends to ditch stuff but Microsoft's support for legacy stuff is legendary. That's why many things in the design of Windows are obiectively crap, because they really want to support old stuff.
> * Lack of older hardware support
I heard that Windows 11 bumped up the spec requirements so you're probably right. Windows 10, though, runs well on hardware from 7+ years ago.
> * Lack of configurability
Meh, after a while you just want something stable. And I say this as someone who was patching Conky and configuring FVWM for hours on end.
> * Not owning the software you run
This is primarily philosophical. In practice it doesn't matter much.
Especially since Linux distros are frequently self-serving too, see the many projects started and abandoned by Ubuntu.
A lot of your comment in practice is anti-proprietary FUD straight from Eric S. Raymond's book from 1998.
Everything has drawbacks in practice and not even Open Source devs are saints. See Gnome devs, Poettering, the glibc maintainer from a while ago, etc.
> I’m not so sure developers would want the alternative of malware-plagued PCs.
We would never even be at the level we're at if there weren't those malware-plagued PCs and their open marketplace of software and operating systems competing with each other.
> Previous consumer OSes had major usability and security drawbacks for the average consumer.
You mean Windows did, because A) it was the OS of the vast majority of desktop systems and B) they had a culture and practice of not taking security very seriously, or at least prioritizing so many things over it that the outcome was the same.
Apple's operating systems traditionally faced less scrutiny (but now there are more security problems since they are more popular). Windows has gotten much better and Microsoft appears to be much more serious about security (since it because a large enough problem to actually threaten their OS market dominance).
> Through no fault of their own, their computers would gradually get slower and corrupted by 3rd parties.
Not really my experience over the last 6-7 years. Prior to that, depending on OS, sure.
> This is similar to the shift to cloud computing. It’s more valuable to have a service take care of me than to have the freedom of licensed software .
To you, sure, but for the average person or company, it's variable and based on many things (capability, scale, etc).
> It’s also worth noting that software always has been considered a service in some sectors - enterprise software dating back to the 1970s for example required 21-25% of your purchase price in annual service & support fees with penalties if you terminate.
The enterprise doesn't really scale to the individual level we're talking about at all. An enterprise buying a specific computer with certain hardware with a custom OS delivered as a service is like a person buying some Tamagotchi toy and looking at it for 5 minutes a day for a week. Enterprises run anywhere from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of desktops and/or servers and any software as a service they pay for in that ecosystem is minuscule compared to the whole. Apple controls a non-negligible portion of most iPhone users compute time in one way or another (or multiple ways).
>> I wouldn't have to deal with their backwards and incapable UI.
Well, that’s, like, your opinion, man...
No, seriously, I feel the same way about Windows’ UI. I mean, did you ever use Windows 8? And Windows 10 has built-in ads by default in the UI/UX?
Windows XP SP3 was peak Windows, IMHO - the awful part about them making an abortive mess bastard child of the UI/UX in 8 was that there are millions of non-techie people who literally know how to follow one sequence of events on their computer, and that usually starts with ‘press start’.
Windows 8’s awfulness is probably what drove a lot of those people to iPads. If you’re learning a new user interface idiom anyways, and even Microsoft Office is on the iPad; why stick with Windows?
> I haven't actively used Windows since 2008. It's such an obnoxious OS to use
You might want to modernize your perception of it, holding on to 15 year old views is not a very smart move in the tech industry.
Windows 10 and 11 are a joy to use, and to develop. I used a Mac for 15 years and switched to Windows to develop 5 years ago, and now macOS looks extremely antiquated and creaky for development.
> And copilot everywhere.
You raise a serious point, oft discussed here (about the sorry state of the OS)
I actually think the "whimsical", nostalgia these kind of apps (toys?) point to is actually indicative of a more serious "yearning" for simpler, higher quality, more user-configurable computing. As it was not so long ago ...
reply