That neglect is the reason that it was made worse. Everything added to Windows that was worse is actively designed to generate some kind, any kind, of revenue growth. Without the full force of the organization behind it, it now has to struggle to prove some kind of worth and that enshiftification is the result.
I think neglecting Windows is a huge failure for Microsoft. Azure might be where all the money and growth is, but it wouldn't be anything without Windows. Owning a platform is a massive advantage. Apple has their own platform. Google has Android. Microsoft has Windows. Every other major tech player from Meta to OpenAI is desperately trying to get themselves a platform. Because it's so fundamentally important to succeeding at this scale.
For Microsoft to neglect their platform is, in my opinion, a massive strategic mistake. Microsoft already failed with mobile and it cost them an entire seat at that table. If people hate Windows, it's going to have knock-on effects to everything that Microsoft sells including Azure. I would argue that Windows is what keeps Azure from becoming just another commodity cloud provider.
At some point I guess things became "good enough". The leap to Windows 95 was huge. The leap to Windows 2000 was huge. Leaps in hardware was huge as well around at that time.
It's many years ago I felt things started to plateau. When was the last time you were excited about a new processor? Or a bigger hard drive? If Microsoft makes their money from OEMs, and OEMs want to sell new hardware, I guess Windows needs to demand more resources... to keep the OEMs happy. TPM 2.0? For our security, or an easy way to sell new hardware, since Windows 10 will be "obsolete" and you "have" to upgrade to Windows 11.
And just to squeeze out some extra bucks, Microsoft discovered what Google and Facebook found out years ago... there is serious money in advertising.
I have an old Windows 8.1 PC in a corner. It has all I need, really. Enough disk and RAM for my usage (not a gamer).
I believe they've come to realize they've gone too far this time. Simply forcing people to buy a new PC simply to kick up Microsoft's quarterly sales numbers has enraged customers, many of whom refuse to throw out their perfectly good hardware. Many are installing Linux Mint on their machines instead.
Despite newer security measures mandated in Windows 11 computers keep getting pwned by cyber-criminals and miscreants alike revealing the measure for what it really is: purely a ploy to squeeze more money out of customers' pockets.
> Despite newer security measures mandated in Windows 11 computers keep getting pwned by cyber-criminals
Those are "OS security measures" used to protect the OS from the user. User data is not protected at all. Google pioneered the fact that an app can access all your data and sent over the internet, with the only "security" being: "Do you want to allow this app access to all your files ? "
Azure's a massive pothole, the biggest waste of time and money, there's five options available.
1 - it's in preview or private preview and sits there for years.
2 - half the platform is poorly stitched together and one blip away from weeks or months of failure.
3 - Management don't care or have any understanding, if you can get the right information to the outsourced support they still won't have any idea (sorry its out of our scope).
4 - ai will fix it.
5 - pay us more money for nothing, we will pull the rug from under your feet soon.
> I see a future where it does roll into azure and become a hosted only “feature”
It seems that way. And most people would probably follow along, not knowing any alternatives. But I like the idea of "local first", no online account required.
Windows may have looked like something to squeeze until the last drop, but customers are clearly voting with their feet. And Microsoft knows it. Plus the realization that if Windows falls, Microsoft falls has been haunting them lately.
I mean, Windows has effectively four different UIs in it, al from different eras, from Win95, to Vista to Windows Mobile to Windows 11. Any "normal" company would've been lambasted for it, but Microsoft knows it can get away with it.
If improving Windows' image doesn't work I bet they'll resort to underhanded tricks to trip up their competitors. I mean it's in the DNA of the company. From Bill Gates' sale of PC-DOS, to the backstabbing of IBM with Windows to the blocking of Corel Linux from taking hold on the desktop. I'm betting they'll use a proxy company to buy-out Linux Mint or its main developer, Clément Lefèbvre ("Here's $100 million, now take a walk.").
I don't see how Microsoft buying out Linux Mint would change anything. Linux Mint is just a configuration skin on top of Ubuntu/Debian and is fully open source. If Microsoft bought out the debeloper someone else can just take the code that exists currently and create "Linux Hibiscus" and people can just swap over by changing one repo config file.
General turmoil in an important project like Linux Mint will work to Microsoft's advantage. It will usually lead to developers and users leaving preventing Linux Mint from becoming a desktop Linux rallying point.
I have to disagree with the author in one key detail: IMHO Windows wasn't neglected, it was actively made worse over the last decade(s)...
That neglect is the reason that it was made worse. Everything added to Windows that was worse is actively designed to generate some kind, any kind, of revenue growth. Without the full force of the organization behind it, it now has to struggle to prove some kind of worth and that enshiftification is the result.
I think neglecting Windows is a huge failure for Microsoft. Azure might be where all the money and growth is, but it wouldn't be anything without Windows. Owning a platform is a massive advantage. Apple has their own platform. Google has Android. Microsoft has Windows. Every other major tech player from Meta to OpenAI is desperately trying to get themselves a platform. Because it's so fundamentally important to succeeding at this scale.
For Microsoft to neglect their platform is, in my opinion, a massive strategic mistake. Microsoft already failed with mobile and it cost them an entire seat at that table. If people hate Windows, it's going to have knock-on effects to everything that Microsoft sells including Azure. I would argue that Windows is what keeps Azure from becoming just another commodity cloud provider.
At some point I guess things became "good enough". The leap to Windows 95 was huge. The leap to Windows 2000 was huge. Leaps in hardware was huge as well around at that time.
It's many years ago I felt things started to plateau. When was the last time you were excited about a new processor? Or a bigger hard drive? If Microsoft makes their money from OEMs, and OEMs want to sell new hardware, I guess Windows needs to demand more resources... to keep the OEMs happy. TPM 2.0? For our security, or an easy way to sell new hardware, since Windows 10 will be "obsolete" and you "have" to upgrade to Windows 11.
And just to squeeze out some extra bucks, Microsoft discovered what Google and Facebook found out years ago... there is serious money in advertising.
I have an old Windows 8.1 PC in a corner. It has all I need, really. Enough disk and RAM for my usage (not a gamer).
While Win7 wasnt huge, it was one of the best releases IMHO
Yeah, it was better. Windows 8 and 8.1 was a disappointment with its "metro style".
[dead]
I believe they've come to realize they've gone too far this time. Simply forcing people to buy a new PC simply to kick up Microsoft's quarterly sales numbers has enraged customers, many of whom refuse to throw out their perfectly good hardware. Many are installing Linux Mint on their machines instead.
Despite newer security measures mandated in Windows 11 computers keep getting pwned by cyber-criminals and miscreants alike revealing the measure for what it really is: purely a ploy to squeeze more money out of customers' pockets.
> Despite newer security measures mandated in Windows 11 computers keep getting pwned by cyber-criminals
Those are "OS security measures" used to protect the OS from the user. User data is not protected at all. Google pioneered the fact that an app can access all your data and sent over the internet, with the only "security" being: "Do you want to allow this app access to all your files ? "
Well if it died and didn't go to heaven, where did it go?
Oh, right.
Azure's a massive pothole, the biggest waste of time and money, there's five options available.
1 - it's in preview or private preview and sits there for years.
2 - half the platform is poorly stitched together and one blip away from weeks or months of failure.
3 - Management don't care or have any understanding, if you can get the right information to the outsourced support they still won't have any idea (sorry its out of our scope).
4 - ai will fix it.
5 - pay us more money for nothing, we will pull the rug from under your feet soon.
I am amazed they are still in business.
wish.com / temu.com version of a cloud service.
You can look at the recent earnings and see Microsoft is negative 1%.
I see a future where it does roll into azure and become a hosted only “feature”
> I see a future where it does roll into azure and become a hosted only “feature”
It seems that way. And most people would probably follow along, not knowing any alternatives. But I like the idea of "local first", no online account required.
Windows may have looked like something to squeeze until the last drop, but customers are clearly voting with their feet. And Microsoft knows it. Plus the realization that if Windows falls, Microsoft falls has been haunting them lately.
I mean, Windows has effectively four different UIs in it, al from different eras, from Win95, to Vista to Windows Mobile to Windows 11. Any "normal" company would've been lambasted for it, but Microsoft knows it can get away with it.
If improving Windows' image doesn't work I bet they'll resort to underhanded tricks to trip up their competitors. I mean it's in the DNA of the company. From Bill Gates' sale of PC-DOS, to the backstabbing of IBM with Windows to the blocking of Corel Linux from taking hold on the desktop. I'm betting they'll use a proxy company to buy-out Linux Mint or its main developer, Clément Lefèbvre ("Here's $100 million, now take a walk.").
I don't see how Microsoft buying out Linux Mint would change anything. Linux Mint is just a configuration skin on top of Ubuntu/Debian and is fully open source. If Microsoft bought out the debeloper someone else can just take the code that exists currently and create "Linux Hibiscus" and people can just swap over by changing one repo config file.
General turmoil in an important project like Linux Mint will work to Microsoft's advantage. It will usually lead to developers and users leaving preventing Linux Mint from becoming a desktop Linux rallying point.
azure took over, its the biggest pot hole in history. crazyie