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.
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.
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.
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.
- Rushed
- No quality
- Regressions
- Bugs
As you say, there is no apparent technical goal behind Windows 11.