Windows 11, take the plunge?

Good point. I do know that Microsoft is continually rewriting parts of Windows for various good reasons, mostly to reduce the risk of security holes, etc. So it's quite possible they have rewritten large parts of the Start menu and task bar code, and simply not put in all the functionality it used to have.

1 Like

On the subject of W10 and W11, personally I really hate Microsoft's decision to force a touch-orientated UI onto desktop users.

I've got W7 in a virtual machine, and for a mouse/keyboard user it is very much superior to W10. In W10 the common dialogs have been rewritten to be easy for touch, which means everything is way bigger than it used to be. Look at the 'File Open' dialog in MS Word, for example - it takes up the entire screen! (I assume it's not technically part of the OS, but it is certainly part of the same design language.)

The 'Settings' area of W10 is horrible for a mouse user - probably three times the mouse mileage is required over Control Panel in W7.

One thing I like about Apple is that they've kept the UI appropriate to the platform. Tablets and phones have a touch-orientated UI, but their workstations are still mouse/keyboard orientated.

According to Microsoft Windows 10 will reach EOL on October 14, 2025.

So, I'll probably keep my current machines on Windows 10 and get Windows 11 on the next laptop I get.

One word:

Linux.

1 Like

I thought you were on a Chromebook

Two words

No thanks

1 Like

Three words: clunky as f***.

I've been using Linux for around 15 years, and it still feels amateurish and geeky. Right now I'm playing with Fedora, Garuda, KDE Neon, Mint and Pop. They all have their own different takes on the UI. Some look quite sober and professional, some look garish and amateurish. None look like they've been refined and polished through extensive testing by UI experts in usability labs. Unlike macOS and Windows, which have.

All of the Linux GUIs feel like a rather thin layer on top of an OS which is essentially unfriendly to anyone but geeks. And it shows through that surface layer all too often.

I'm not surprised: Linux is largely developed by unpaid geeks for other geeks. There is no business case for making it as user-friendly as macOS or Windows, because nobody makes big money by selling millions of licences to non-geek end users.

I think there are only three user groups for whom Linux is appropriate. Firstly, the vast number of IT professionals who want to exploit its technical excellence in server roles throughout the internet, and in the IT infrastructure of many companies. These people are geeks - computer specialists who don't need or care about a beautiful, friendly, intuitive graphical UI because they have a deep understanding of its inner workings.

Secondly, those relatively few people who use their computer a bit like a Chromebook - they just want to look at their emails, browse the web, and perhaps want to use one or two particular applications, and importantly, they don't want to spend any money on a new PC. They aren't interested in computers and certainly don't want to explore beyond their immediate needs. For them, the only thing that matters is whether the OS will run their particular application on their old PC or laptop.

The third group aren't end users at all - they are the manufacturers of applicances such as TVs, set-top boxes and others "smart" products, who find it quicker and cheaper to build their product on an existing OS, rather than developing their own. These manufacturers invariably put their own UI on top of Linux, completely hiding the OS from the end user. Indeed, it is often not possible to tell what OS is being used under the hood.

The first group don't give a fig what GUI is provided because they are already deep in the nuts and bolts. The second group don't care about the GUI because they just want a way of getting a few more years use out of a 12-year-old doorstop. The end users of the Roku stick, the Sony TV or other appliances don't get to see the OS at all, because it's buried under a 10-foot GUI from the manufacturer.

If you like using computers, and appreciate a slick, polished, smooth, intuitive, beautiful, carefully developed and professional GUI that remains coherent and consistent from side to side and top to bottom, then you definitely WON'T like Linux!

2 Likes

Well said @SteveThackery
I run Linux in a virtual box VM. Does the job and stays out of the way the other 97% of the time.

I give my low income students a Raspberry PI setup with Raspbian and Skype, along with a webcam. Cost is an issue there and I hate Chromebooks, so it's the best I can do. I used to refurb older Windows desktops and give them out, but that got too be expensive as well.

All valid points, however that is not my user experience with Mint Linux that I use on my main workhorse computer. I don't find the UI "clunky" or anything like that. I would notice it, because I use it for several hours every day. I think Linux UI development historically suffered from some splintering, first some problems with the group that supported the graphics interface (X86 or something like that IIRC), then a battle between Gnome and KDE desktop managers. But behind the scenes things have stabilized a lot, like with a more or less settling on Alsa for sound etc. and automatic USB device detection and so on. Even the wifi setup is much more automatic than before, recently I installed wifi sticks on two old laptops that I converted from W7 to Mint Linux, and they "just worked" on install.

On a daily basis, I use Mint for almost everything, and my only complaint is really with Firefox, which crashes if it has too much multimedia graphics going on.

Some of my development software won't run properly or at all under Linux, so I just keep another Windows computer beside me, for that.

The Mint box came to be, not really by a rational process. I built a system from scratch, so the OEM Windows would have been an add on. I stood in the store and mulled it over. "Do I want to go through the Linux hassle again?". Stubbornly, I decided yes. But there was no hassle, it just installed and ran.

Personally I have no desire to have a computer with Windows 11. Only have one computer at home with Windows 10 on it, and that is only because of a single program that only runs on Windows.

I've loaded 11 on a computer at work, but have not used it much. Really got my fill of Microsoft a few years ago with the whole thing of "we're bringing the start menu back in the next big update of windows 8" that never materialized. If you never intend to do something, just tell people and let them get over it, better than implying (or lying about) something that you never intend to do.

I have a huge disagreement over the graphical UI being "intuitive" - this is not limited to Windows, although I have a vivid memory of the first time I loaded Windows 8 onto a computer. Had to search google to find out how to shut the computer off, because to me it is totally non-intuitive that I needed to place the mouse pointer in an unmarked corner of the screen and wait for a menu to appear, and even then shut down only hibernates the computer and does not completely shut it down. I'm also a bit too old-fashioned to keep up with all the latest graphical icons and what they mean.

Having started with DOS years ago, there are still things I find much easier to do on WIndows at the command prompt, particularly with Microsoft's habit of moving menu items around with every new version of a program.

I tend not to like the newer Linux GUIs, in part because they seem to be following a more Windows-like trend.

32 gb ram, 8 core Ryzen 7, win 10 pro, RTX2060, Running from 1Tb NVME and the win evaluation tool says NOPE I don't qualify for 11. Oh well wait for another version of the tool I guess cos they have released at least 4 versions so far.

It's the only evaluation tool that balks at my setup.
All the other software eval tools for other software say YEP of course you are good to go why are you even asking.

Did it cite a specific reason?
I wonder if it checks the current driver database as part of the process.

TPM enabled on the motherboard? Windows 11 requires TPM 2.0, and that secure boot be enabled.

It was the TPM but they were supposed to have dropped that back as even some newer boards seemingly did not support it fully. I enabled it but still didn't get a pass.

This box is a little less than a year old from new.
Not sure of the mobo age.

2021-11-20 at 19-50-16

However its plenty fast enough to cope with CURA and other graphics apps for 3d work so maybe I don't need win11.

LOL

:rofl:

Do I have to downgrade for that ?

Maybe your sub-par score has to do with it being a nuclear submarine. Have you tried it on a frigate or an aircraft carrier?

Try up periscope instead.

With all that hardware, something tells me your boomer has a sound short. Maybe the sonar dept failed you.

The humour here has sunk to new depths.
Edit - although it's consistent with the thread title.

Pardon ?

I'm knot shore I can top that, but I'll try.
With Thanksgiving on the horizon I guess people will soon be wishing each other seas and greetings.

Buoy these puns are bad.

My main PC runs Mint Cinnamon (most counter-intuitive name ever).

I mentioned the Chromebook because I usually post from school, which has no money. So that's what I'm stick with a lot of the time.

Even then, Chrome OS is literally Linux but bad...

Chrome OS isn't an OS; it's a browser in a trench coat playing in a sandbox.