Getting rid of tiles and similar seems like a substantial improvement, and might address part of people's complaints about Windows 10. The most important question, though: is Windows still "evergreen" with free updates, or will people have to buy Windows 11? The latter would mean we can't count on Windows systems being up to date. I was happily looking forward to the day when software could just support Windows 10 and no other Windows version.
It's one thing to force an update that just makes background improvements. It's another thing entirely to force a UI update that breaks your workflow.
Most of us just got the people we support used to the new design now they're going to up and change it completely again.
My Grandmother has basically given up using the computer because she doesn't have the mental energy to relearn a UI every time some MBA comes along wanting to "disrupt" the status quo.
It's basically akin to the company that manufactures your car showing up at your house while you're sleeping, moving the steering wheel to the center of the car, re-arranging buttons on the console, blacking out two of the windows because it looks cool, then leaving a nice little note on your front porch: "We upgraded your car, it's so much better!"
Software developers around the world don't have to build software compatible with your old car, and get blamed for any incompatibility.
There have already been posts showing that there's an option to put the start menu back on the left if you want that. Hopefully there will be options to deal with other inconveniences. As it stands, this already looks like it fixes many of the complaints people had about Windows 10; in that regard, parts of it are exactly what many people asked for.
I don't want people to deal with a UI they dislike. I also don't want developers having to deal with a no-longer-evergreen OS. Windows was the last OS to move to the evergreen model; when Windows 10 came out, it was a great relief to many developers, who saw a point on the horizon where there was only one version of Windows they would have to support, and it would always be up to date.
Remember, the alternative isn't just "oh well, I guess we'll support Windows 10 and Windows 11". One alternative is "guess we'll build a web app instead", or "guess we'll drop support for Windows 10" (in which case people still need to upgrade, but they blame app developers instead of Windows).
I'm sure the option will exist to not upgrade, at least for a while. But if the default is to upgrade, app developers get much less of the blame if they expect and depend on that upgrade.
> Software developers around the world don't have to build software compatible with your old car, and get blamed for any incompatibility.
That sounds like a problem for software developers, not my grandmother. Now she can't use _any_ software because she has to relearn the OS every few years. She doesn't have that much time left on this earth and I don't blame her for not wanting to expend the mental energy on learning something that's just gonna change for no apparent reason a few years down the road.
As an audio application developer who still supports users on OSX 10.6.8, I have to ask, what is this about "Windows was the last OS to move to the evergreen model"? Do the breaking changes in MacOS version updates somehow not count anymore?
If developers don't want to support multiple versions of an OS, there are plenty of domains where that isn't an issue. The desktop seems like a weird place to complain about this issue, though, since this is a challenge inherent in the fact that users have choices and freedoms.
I'm not suggesting that apps should drop such support instantaneously or gratuitously. Rather, I'm just suggesting that in the normal course of development, as an OS version becomes sufficiently old and has genuine issues that make support non-trivial, and if the upgrade to a newer version is free and automatic (so it's reasonable to expect people to upgrade), an app developer may at some point say "we expect at least this OS version; if you're using an older version, you're welcome to try, but we don't test on those OS versions so we can't offer any support or respond to bug reports from those OS versions".
I absolutely believe that the "you're welcome to try" part of that is important, assuming there's no known issue (which there may sometimes be). Developers also have an upper bound on available support bandwidth. I don't think apps (or websites) should prevent users from even trying, unless there's some specific technical reason (e.g. a known incompatibility that's producing substantial support burden just to triage, or a library or API that simply doesn't exist on the older version). I do think it's reasonable to say "please upgrade and try again, and if you're still experiencing the issue we'll take a look".
Along the same lines, if a user reports an issue to a website where it doesn't function properly in Chrome 12, or Firefox 9, it's entirely reasonable for the site to respond with "please upgrade, we don't support outdated browsers". It's a little more questionable for a site to say that about a version released the previous month, unless the site is a tech demo for bleeding-edge technology. But at no point do I think a site should actually block users attempting to use older browsers; at most, it's reasonable to show a "not supported or tested, might not work" message.
I agree with this 100% and it blows my mind that so many in tech take the opposite stance. For the people who just see a computer as a tool, which is probably the vast majority of users, they just want it to work and then get out of their way. Very few are interested in spending a bunch of time relearning a new UI just to keep up with the latest design fad.
All of this bias towards churn is probably great for my career options so I guess that's something. But stories like this make me really feel for the millions of less tech-interested users who get frustrated by big changes like this. Within the tech bubble it's easy to forget how many things we take for granted as simple are actually quite hard for many people.
No, once 20H1 was released it got cut into its own release branch. 20H2, 21H1 and 21H2 are all just updates on top of that branch. You can tell because their build numbers are all 1904x.
Windows 11 is based on the mainline branch after the above (though it too has been cut into its own release branch now). of course, some changes might be ported back and forth between releases.
So machines not eligible to be upgraded to Windows 11 will stay on Windows 10 and get 21H2 and who knows how many more updates.
Oh Windows users, what a crazy bunch. I personally would never use a piece of software that updated (or downgraded, depending on the perspective) against my wishes.
I found a link to a tool[0] that checks your PC compatibility with Windows 11, but it seems that many many people with powerful devices are getting a "No" answer.
So now we finally know that 2025 will be the year of the Linux desktop. There will be no more supported Windows version for older hardware, and Microsoft's love for Linux will finally blossom into forcing migration for millions of computers. This is the most interesting part of the announcement, and I hope that desktop Linux distros will take advantage of the situation. Of course, Microsoft could reverse course by then.
I believe they have said, or hinted, that it will be a free upgrade. Microsoft has an incentive itself to get as many people on one build itself to lower legacy costs.
> is Windows still "evergreen" with free updates, or will people have to buy Windows 11?
It's a free upgrade, just like 8 -> 10.
I assume Microsoft is doing this because of the hype that typically surrounds new Mac OS versions. I have no doubt that this could have been one of the evergreen updates, if only Microsoft hadn't been calling Windows 10 updates 'exciting' things like "21H2".
That hospital is dumb and will likely face issues in the near future then. Win7 isn't supported by Microsoft since early 2020, which means no more security updates. Given hospitals are getting more and more frequently targeted by ransomware... Well, we'll see how that goes.
There's still win8 and win8.1 to worry about though, and win10 also has LTSC releases that stay supported for at least 10 years IIRC.
What I don’t get is hospitals buying things like MRI scanners, with Windows based “controller” with no upgrade path. The hospital, and the manufacturer, knows that the version of Windows they’re running will be EOL before the hardware, yet nobody ask the manufacturer how they plan to deal with that fact.
The promise of Windows 10 being the last Windows could have but an end to that nonsense.
The manufacturer of the MRI machine doesn't care. In their mind the "upgrade path" is to buy a new one. That might support the current iteration of Windows + their drivers until the next Windows is released. Sure it's nonsense but the hospital can't just not have an MRI machine. They need one and someone will capitalize on that need.
MRI machines aren't like a copier. They're million-plus dollar room-sized installs that require massive facilities support, custom spaces, and in many places in the US, a certificate of need to allow you to purchase and install it (distributed geographically by population and governmental formulas).
I suspect the 'replacement' or 'upgrade' market for such machines is very very low. Major capital expenditure intended to be amortized/depreciated over many years.
Why does it matter? Just don't connect it to the internet and there should be no issue. Why would you want to update software that could potentially break your super expensive machine if it already works?
So what you’re saying is, this can’t have happened because nobody would be dumb enough to buy a convenient Internet-enabled smart device and then actually connect it to the Internet:
And also that this problem definitely won’t get worse as more and more of these devices are built on platforms that want to require you to sign in with a cloud service…
Of course people are going to do silly things, but you can't protect people from stupidity.
>And also that this problem definitely won’t get worse as more and more of these devices are built on platforms that want to require you to sign in with a cloud service…
Which is why it's so important that not giving network access to medical machines becomes standard practice.
It blows my mind that any would be accessible from the internet. These devices shouldn't be networked at all if possible. But at the very least they should be on their own network, preferably physically isolated instead of VLANs.
Windows 7 is absolutely still supported through an ESU subscription through 2022. There are plenty of organizations who are using that program to continue to use Windows 7 in places where it makes financial sense.
A buddy of mine with a Subway franchise is finally being prodded by corporate to upgrade his Windows 7 hardware. They still have support for Windows 7 for a little while, but not long -- it's apparently done by August 31st this year. And, their upgrade path is Windows 10 LTSC, which will expire in 2026.
