MinxieAll I have to say about the requirements isthis. Goodbye, unwatching this thread full of misinformed cynics.

Holy shit! Who the hell is going to read that unoptimized dumpster fire?

Vayra86Now watch Windows 12 bring back the 7 Start Menu

If we're gonna wish for stuff, I'd rather the Windows 2000 menu lol

I can' even do anything with the start menu anymore. With 7, I used to be able to organize it and launch all my programs, games and what have you from folders I created there. 10 lets me do no such thing.

SOAREVERSORIt does look "macish" but mac looks like gnome to me!

Doesn't look MacOS like to me.

ThrashZoneHi,
CPU's depend on bios updates to get unflagged don't they
No bios update/ no 11 unless jump through hoops that is.

They don't. CPUs either have the required instructions or they get flagged. BIOS updates will not add silicon to CPU ;)

The only thing that I really like about Windows 11 is the way that you can hover the mouse over the maximize button and get several ways to tile your windows. Oh, and Bluetooth AAC support too. I have a pair of Sony headphones that support AAC as a Bluetooth audio codec so now I can get high quality audio from my Bluetooth headphones when compared to that of that old codec that sounds like hot garbage.

defaultluser6 months after, its still has zero momentum.

medium.com/geekculture/windows-11-is-officially-a-failure-141c4027a308

That "survey", looks like it was taking data from businesses.

It's no small wonder there's no adoption of Win11 there. Win10 is still supported for the next few years, we're not going to switch over until that issue looms over us...

SlizzoThat "survey", looks like it was taking data from businesses.

It's no small wonder there's no adoption of Win11 there. Win10 is still supported for the next few years, we're not going to switch over until that issue looms over us...

Lack of support didn't stop companies to use Win XP until eternity. Even governments.

If 11 provides issues, you can rest assured MS is not going to get into a position to end support on 10. We saw this before.

Adoption is adoption, really, I doubt there is a meaningful difference in statistics between enterprise usage and consumer. Both are effectively offered the same deal: access to Azure for numerous (office related) tasks, either in a big contract or Office365 for consumer... an OS that basically evolves like a SaaS package with generic components, free to access until you want something special.

The fact is, Windows thrives on adoption rates, so MS knows thats the only way to keep it afloat. No consumers will mean enterprise will eventually die too.

Vayra86Lack of support didn't stop companies to use Win XP until eternity. Even governments.

If 11 provides issues, you can rest assured MS is not going to get into a position to end support on 10. We saw this before.

Adoption is adoption, really, I doubt there is a meaningful difference in statistics between enterprise usage and consumer. Both are effectively offered the same deal: access to Azure for numerous (office related) tasks, either in a big contract or Office365 for consumer... an OS that basically evolves like a SaaS package with generic components, free to access until you want something special.

The fact is, Windows thrives on adoption rates, so MS knows thats the only way to keep it afloat. No consumers will mean enterprise will eventually die too.

The consumer has less to validate if anything at all ftm.
My company is looking into 11 but not yet swapping to it, big 15000 people company too ,I have two work PC's so damn I'd guess 25000 on 10 there , where's I personally have two behaving well on 11 and my now old faithful laptop on 10 for retro style.
It's definitely a thing that companies don't move quickly.

TheoneandonlyMrKThe consumer has less to validate if anything at all ftm.
My company is looking into 11 but not yet swapping to it, big 15000 people company too ,I have two work PC's so damn I'd guess 25000 on 10 there , where's I personally have two behaving well on 11 and my now old faithful laptop on 10 for retro style.
It's definitely a thing that companies don't move quickly.

IME larger companies are more likely to adopt newer OSes because they have a larger IT department who can spare a person or two to validate the new OS with their hardware and mission-critical software. Someone at the top of the IT food chain will delegate the job and leave that person or persons alone to get on with that job. It's a worthwhile task when talking about eventual rollout to thousands or tens of thousands of machines because it'll need to be done eventually anyway, and they might as well get ahead of it to give themselves plenty of time to tackle compatibility and problems, potentially with custom or in-house software.

Smaller companies where you have a team of maybe one or two people managing IT don't have the time, resources, or willpower do do the compatibility testing that Microsoft, hardware vendors, and software vendors inevitably fail to fully get right before an OS launch. Not only do they lack the time and resources to test, they likely play it safe because the attitude is "why should I/we beta test this new OS for Microsoft when someone else can trip over the problems and fix them for us?". Chances are far higher that there is little to no custom or in-house software that needs to be addressed so a small business will move to a new OS only once the downsides to not upgrading outweigh the effort of upgrading every workstation. They'll be using cheaper, less powerful tools like Smartdeploy and PDQ instead of SCCM and multicast imaging with WOL cloning clients.

Arguably the worst size company for OS upgrades is likely 5-50 staff where the IT budget and manpower doesn't even justify these automation and deployment suites for in-house IT, and is an unncessary expense if the IT is outsourced at a day rate.

Chrispy_IME larger companies are more likely to adopt newer OSes because they have a larger IT department who can spare a person or two to validate the new OS with their hardware and mission-critical software. Someone at the top of the IT food chain will delegate the job and leave that person or persons alone to get on with that job. It's a worthwhile task when talking about eventual rollout to thousands or tens of thousands of machines because it'll need to be done eventually anyway, and they might as well get ahead of it to give themselves plenty of time to tackle compatibility and problems, potentially with custom or in-house software.

Smaller companies where you have a team of maybe one or two people managing IT don't have the time, resources, or willpower do do the compatibility testing that Microsoft, hardware vendors, and software vendors inevitably fail to fully get right before an OS launch. Not only do they lack the time and resources to test, they likely play it safe because the attitude is "why should I/we beta test this new OS for Microsoft when someone else can trip over the problems and fix them for us?". Chances are far higher that there is little to no custom or in-house software that needs to be addressed so a small business will move to a new OS only once the downsides to not upgrading outweigh the effort of upgrading every workstation. They'll be using cheaper, less powerful tools like Smartdeploy and PDQ instead of SCCM and multicast imaging with WOL cloning clients.

Arguably the worst size company for OS upgrades is likely 5-50 staff where the IT budget and manpower doesn't even justify these automation and deployment suites for in-house IT, and is an unncessary expense if the IT is outsourced at a day rate.

I've worked at many big companies, I haven't yet seen one jump to a new OS within two years smaller companies go long.

TheoneandonlyMrKThe consumer has less to validate if anything at all ftm.
My company is looking into 11 but not yet swapping to it, big 15000 people company too ,I have two work PC's so damn I'd guess 25000 on 10 there , where's I personally have two behaving well on 11 and my now old faithful laptop on 10 for retro style.
It's definitely a thing that companies don't move quickly.

Where I used to work most of us continued to use XP well after MS ended extended support. I think we were paying MS a fee for continued support. New PCs received Win 7. Eventually we all got Win 7. Vista was skipped entirely.

TheoneandonlyMrKI've worked at many big companies, I haven't yet seen one jump to a new OS within two years smaller companies go long.

Within two years is still faster than "only when it's forcibly retired" which is how the many SMBs I've worked for or with often treat OS upgrades.

I don't know any SMBs that bothered with Vista or 8. Through the eyes of a small IT department, they were failed beta-tests for 7 and 10 respectively that, in hinsight were a management nightmare and effectively superseded by the time they were trouble-free enough to bother with. Certainly hardware came preinstalled with newer OSes, and was duly wiped/reimaged to the company standard.

One of the biggest motivators to upgrade, i.e. when I said "small business will move to a new OS only once the downsides to not upgrading outweigh the effort of upgrading" is the hassle of getting hardware working on an older, unsupported OS. Laptops are usually the first breed of IT kit that drop support for older OSes. At least 3-4 years before W7 hit end-of-support, laptops were W10 only and you had to really work at getting hotkeys, trackpads, fingerprint readers working if you'd wanted to put the incumbent W7 on it.

Chrispy_Within two years is still faster than "only when it's forcibly retired" which is how the many SMBs I've worked for or with often treat OS upgrades.

I don't know any SMBs that bothered with Vista or 8. Through the eyes of a small IT department, they were failed beta-tests for 7 and 10 respectively that, in hinsight were a management nightmare and effectively superseded by the time they were trouble-free enough to bother with. Certainly hardware came preinstalled with newer OSes, and was duly wiped/reimaged to the company standard.

One of the biggest motivators to upgrade, i.e. when I said "small business will move to a new OS only once the downsides to not upgrading outweigh the effort of upgrading" is the hassle of getting hardware working on an older, unsupported OS. Laptops are usually the first breed of IT kit that drop support for older OSes. At least 3-4 years before W7 hit end-of-support, laptops were W10 only and you had to really work at getting hotkeys, trackpads, fingerprint readers working if you'd wanted to put the incumbent W7 on it.

I just think comparatively, many home pc users Just update because of security and lack of knowledge, some just buy with 11 on and live with it so uptake in consumer space is way quicker it's a smaller amount of user's though.

TheoneandonlyMrKI just think comparatively, many home pc users Just update because of security and lack of knowledge, some just buy with 11 on and live with it so uptake in consumer space is way quicker it's a smaller amount of user's though.

Oh for sure.
I know plenty of home users who now have W11 because they thought they had to upgrade as part of regular automatic updates.

Chrispy_IME larger companies are more likely to adopt newer OSes because they have a larger IT department who can spare a person or two to validate the new OS with their hardware and mission-critical software. Someone at the top of the IT food chain will delegate the job and leave that person or persons alone to get on with that job. It's a worthwhile task when talking about eventual rollout to thousands or tens of thousands of machines because it'll need to be done eventually anyway, and they might as well get ahead of it to give themselves plenty of time to tackle compatibility and problems, potentially with custom or in-house software.

Smaller companies where you have a team of maybe one or two people managing IT don't have the time, resources, or willpower do do the compatibility testing that Microsoft, hardware vendors, and software vendors inevitably fail to fully get right before an OS launch. Not only do they lack the time and resources to test, they likely play it safe because the attitude is "why should I/we beta test this new OS for Microsoft when someone else can trip over the problems and fix them for us?". Chances are far higher that there is little to no custom or in-house software that needs to be addressed so a small business will move to a new OS only once the downsides to not upgrading outweigh the effort of upgrading every workstation. They'll be using cheaper, less powerful tools like Smartdeploy and PDQ instead of SCCM and multicast imaging with WOL cloning clients.

Arguably the worst size company for OS upgrades is likely 5-50 staff where the IT budget and manpower doesn't even justify these automation and deployment suites for in-house IT, and is an unncessary expense if the IT is outsourced at a day rate.

Not in my experience. I've worked for large companies, they have no problem lagging 1-2 years behind.

It is also worth noting this only applies to Windows. Whenever I worked on Linux, I had no problem installing the latest and greatest. And while I haven't worked on macOS, it is my understanding that is also routinely kept pretty up to date.

Chrispy_Within two years is still faster than "only when it's forcibly retired" which is how the many SMBs I've worked for or with often treat OS upgrades.

I don't know any SMBs that bothered with Vista or 8. Through the eyes of a small IT department, they were failed beta-tests for 7 and 10 respectively that, in hinsight were a management nightmare and effectively superseded by the time they were trouble-free enough to bother with. Certainly hardware came preinstalled with newer OSes, and was duly wiped/reimaged to the company standard.

One of the biggest motivators to upgrade, i.e. when I said "small business will move to a new OS only once the downsides to not upgrading outweigh the effort of upgrading" is the hassle of getting hardware working on an older, unsupported OS. Laptops are usually the first breed of IT kit that drop support for older OSes. At least 3-4 years before W7 hit end-of-support, laptops were W10 only and you had to really work at getting hotkeys, trackpads, fingerprint readers working if you'd wanted to put the incumbent W7 on it.

This, exactly. Stuff just needs to work and preferably be manageable.

I'm seeing some of the struggles related even to just keeping pace with Windows 10 updates in enterprise. Its actual work costing actual money on top of the licensing and cloud contract. You don't do that for fun or for anyone's profit margin except the one of MS.

wheresmycarwhy was 11 even released?

This is why

WonkoTheSaneUKThis is why

lol

This should be Microsofts commercial... it might help to reach a more wholesome 1% opposed to "less than 1%" which is immoral

trparkyThe only thing that I really like about Windows 11 is the way that you can hover the mouse over the maximize button and get several ways to tile your windows. Oh, and Bluetooth AAC support too. I have a pair of Sony headphones that support AAC as a Bluetooth audio codec so now I can get high quality audio from my Bluetooth headphones when compared to that of that old codec that sounds like hot garbage.

A lot of people like that feature. I don't use it myself, but why it's a liked feature is easy to understand.

until there is a vertical taskbar im not touching that garbage

noel_fsuntil there is a vertical taskbar im not touching that garbage

I hadn't even realised that was gone. Why would Microsoft remove that?

The only answers I can come up with don't look good for Microsoft, and involve the words lazy, complacent, incompetent, rushed, inconsiderate, clueless, and presumptuous.

There's no good reason to use 11. It's devoid of choice, it's missing features, it's fundamentally less effective as an actual interface and it does not respect any of your preferences.

Chrispy_I hadn't even realised that was gone. Why would Microsoft remove that?

The only answers I can come up with don't look good for Microsoft, and involve the words lazy, complacent, incompetent, rushed, inconsiderate, clueless, and presumptuous.

There's no good reason to use 11. It's devoid of choice, it's missing features, it's fundamentally less effective as an actual interface and it does not respect any of your preferences.

Hi,
Probably get worse
www.elevenforum.com/t/microsoft-moves-to-new-windows-development-cycle-with-major-release-every-three-years-feature-drops-in-between.7726/

Chrispy_I hadn't even realised that was gone. Why would Microsoft remove that?

The only answers I can come up with don't look good for Microsoft, and involve the words lazy, complacent, incompetent, rushed, inconsiderate, clueless, and presumptuous.

There's no good reason to use 11. It's devoid of choice, it's missing features, it's fundamentally less effective as an actual interface and it does not respect any of your preferences.

Apparently getting everything to look good in bith horizontal and vertical positions (icons, tray, window previews and whatnot) is too much work.
For me, that's like a kick in the nuts, considering vertical space is a little more than half of horizontal on a typical monitor.

bugApparently getting everything to look good in bith horizontal and vertical positions (icons, tray, window previews and whatnot) is too much work.

:laugh:

It's a flat UI with zero graphics to make "look good" so there's literally zero work to make it happen vertically.
Also, the mouseover, previews etc - they're completely floating and not graphically tied to the taskbar. Orientation of the bar is, again, irrelevant.

"Microsoft is as Microsoft does"(n't)