On 30 Mar 2023 14:16:43 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On 29 Mar 2023 12:33:29 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 17:55:59 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 3/27/2023 10:59 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 01:33:12 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> In alt.comp.microsoft.windows Minoru Osaka <minoru.osaka@asahi.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>> I have Windows 10 Home & Pro - which is nagging me to move to Windows 11.
>> >> >>>> I do NOT wish to establish a Microsoft Account under any circumstances.
>> >> >>>> If I move to Windows 11 (on Pro or Home) - must I establish a M$ Account?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Or better. Don't upgrade. :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I completely disagree. In my opinion, for almost everyone, it's almost
>> >> >> always the best choice to run on the latest version of Windows.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you're dead wrong.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> OK, we all have different opinions and different preferences. See
>> >> below for a couple of comments.
>> >>
>> >> > And this is why.
>> >> >
>> >> >This is what happens when reach exceeds grasp.
>> >> >
>> >> >http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CXnsAFD496534B6Fnilch1%40wheedledeedle.moc%3E
>> >> >
>> >> >Windows 7 would not do that, because it does not
>> >> >have the technical capability to do that.
>> >> >
>> >> >The Task Manager is no longer sufficient to keep control of your machine.
>> >>
>> >> I don't use the Windows task manager. Instead I use the third-party
>> >> Task Manager Deluxe, which I think is much better.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think everything built into Windows 11 is great, nor did I
>> >> think everything in any prior version was great. So I use third-party
>> >> utilities and application programs whenever I think they are better
>> >> than what comes with Windows or what Microsoft offers separately. I
>> >> won't bother to list them all, but there are a bunch besides Task
>> >> Manager Deluxe, starting with Start11, Winaero Tweaker, and Firefox.
>> >
>> > So basically you're saying you need third-party utilities/programs to
>> >un-break stuff in the newer Windows version, which wasn't broken in the
>> >earlier version(s)! :-( I think you just made Paul's point.
>>
>> No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
>>
>> I wasn't talking about broken stuff. Yes, occasionally something
>> doesn't work the way it's supposed to, but in my experience that's
>> been rare.
>>
>> What I was talking about was stuff that doesn't work the way *I* would
>> like it to. Note the stress on "I." Just because I don't like the way
>> something works doesn't mean everybody doesn't. Some people like
>> changes that I dislike. As an example, I know several people who like
>> and use Edge, even though I think it's the worst of all browsers.
>>
>> So whenever I can make things more to my liking with third-party
>> utilities/programs (continuing my example above, I use Firefox instead
>> of Edge) that's what I do.
>>
>> And there's nothing special about Windows in this regard. The same is
>> often true of new version of most software. I don't like all changes
>> and when I can set things more to my liking with third-party
>> utilities/programs, that's what I do. As an example, I use many
>> Firefox extensions.
>
> "I don't like all changes" is what I meant by "to un-break stuff in
>the newer Windows version, which wasn't broken in the earlier
>version(s)!".

OK. I didn't take it that way,

>Many and even most changes are for no good reason

We completely agree on that. They need to have a substantial number of
changes, or else nobody will upgrade, Almost nobody wants to upgrade
to something that's essentially the same as what they are running.

One other point: I think Microsoft wanted to make Windows more like
smart phones and tablets, because if it continued being very
different, many young people would never use it.

>and - as
>also you've said - they *change* things, instead of offering new
>functionality and leaving the old functionality in tact.

Yes, yes, yes! Offer new functionality as an option, or even make it
the default and keep the old functionality as an option. *Never*
remove old functionality, since if you do, it will undoubtedly piss
off many people. That goes for Microsoft and all other software
companies.

>> There's not a single program I have ever used, by Microsoft or anyone
>> else, in which everything is completely the way I would like it to be.
>> If I were in change of designing them, I would make a number of
>> changes,
>>
>> And note that there would certainly be some people who wouldn't like
>> the changes I would make. We're all different, work in different ways,
>> and have different likes and dislikes. That's why options in programs
>> are good; in a sense, using a third party utility/program is
>> exercising an option that just wasn't built in.
>>
>> You said "need" above. No I don't "need" to do that. I do it because I
>> want to and prefer the result if I do.
>
> Effectively, people *do* need to do that or be forced to live with the
>changed and often decreased/worse functionality. The change is forced on
>us, whether we like it or not.

We disagree. Many people continue to use older versions of Windows.

>> >> But I do think it's best to stay up-to-date with Windows versions,
>> >> primarily because sooner or later some hardware or program or an
>> >> updated version of a program you run is released and you want or need
>> >> it. And when that happens, you may find that it won't run with an
>> >> older Windows version.
>>
>> > And *if* such a thing happens, which isn't all that likely,
>>
>> On the contrary, I think it's virtually guaranteed for most people.
>> The only questions are what hardware, what software, and when does it
>> happen.
>
> I don't think it's all that likely. People often 'upgrade' because
>they think they have to

Alas, yes. That's true of *many* people. They think they do but they
seldom have to.

> or/and they throw their hands in the air at the
>first minor hurdle.

Alas, yes. Instead of finding out how to fix it.

..
> Anyway, I haven't had any real compatibility problems yet in two
>decades.

I haven't either, but I stay up-to-date with all my software, and even
replace things like older printers and scanners periodically.

But not everyone does what I (and you?) do, and sooner or later, they
run into compatibility problems. As an example, I've often seen
questions in the newsgroups and forums like "I Just upgraded to the
new version of Windows and now my (old) XXXX printer doesn't work.
What can I do?" The answer, of course, is "buy a new printer that's
supported in the new version of Windows."

>But yes, that's anecdotal (non-)evidence and so is yours, so we
>better leave it at YMMV.

>> >it's early
>> >enough to consider 'upgrading' to a newer Windows version. BTW, "an
>> >updated version of a program you run" is even less important/common,
>> >because in most cases you can just continue to use the 'old' working
>> >version.
>>
>> True of many programs, but far from all.
>
> I'll settle for "most"! :-)

Depends of how old the program version is. If it's a recent version,
but not the current one, yes, most. If it's a lot older, few.

>> >> Another reason is that if you let a version or two go by before you
>> >> upgrade to the latest version, most people will find it harder to
>> >> adapt to all the changes in the new version. Getting changes a little
>> >> at a time is easier.
>> >
>> > 'True', but it's probably better to have a week of horror
>>
>> What you might find "a week of horror," for many other people might be
>> many weeks of continuous problems trying to figure out to how to do
>> things.
>
> Well, the new version is supposed to be "better", "improved", etc.,
>isn't it? So it should be a piece of cake! :-) Just kidding.

Yes, I understand your joke, and I agree with you. It *should* be a
piece of cake, but it often isn't.

For people who are technically proficient, like most of us here in the
newsgroup, it usually isn't very hard, but for the average home user,
it often is.

> FWIW, I jumped from 8.1. to 11, so a *BIG* jump and it only took about
>a week.
>
>> >instead of
>> >many years of constant annoyance from changing/breaking stuff.
>>
>>
>> I've been running Windows 11 since it was first released--about a year
>> and a half now.. I have had *no* constant annoyance. Almost no
>> annoyances at all. don't remember having any problems with something
>> breaking and the things that were changed that I wanted back the way
>> they were, I adjusted by choosing options and using third-party
>> software almost from day 1.
>
> I wasn't referring to just Windows 11, but to the whole Windows
>lifecycle, i.e. from XP on. For me that's 20 years. From 8.1, it's 8
>years.

I started with Windows 2.0 and have run every version since then,
except for the NT versions (an aside: I even ran Windows 3.11, and not
just WFWG 3.11). For me if's 30+ years. My comment applies to all
those versions.

> As to breaking things, I lost track on how many things Windows 11
>broke in my five months of (real) use. Most things broke in the last
>month (granted, I delayed 22H2 because of extended (3 month) absence).
>And by broken I also mean (substantially) changed functionality which
>needs fixing or working around.

OK, but your definition is very different from mine and I think that
of most people. As far as I'm concerned, "broken" mean failing to
work, crashing.

What you call "broken" doesn't bother me much because the fixes and
work-arounds are usually easy to find and implement.

> This month list from the top of my head:
>
>- Broken Command Prompt windows (Windows Terminal instead of Windows
> Console Host).
>- Totally changed Notepad,
>- Icons stuck (can not be moved) on Taskbar.
>- Windows Update restarting the system without warning (on the Taskbar).
>- Internet access broken by new driver (installed by Windows Update)
> or/and 'something' changing an advanced driver property.
>
>> Yes, it would have been better if those options were built into
>> Windows; an example is the inability to have a vertical task bar
>> without using a third-party program. Perhaps that could be called an
>> annoyance, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a very minor annoyance
>> since it can be fixed so easily and so quickly.
>>
>> Yes, I know there are some people who refuse to use third-party
>> programs and are therefore stuck with whatever is built into Windows.
>> Sometimes they can't use a third-party program because their employee
>> forbids, so yes, those thing that I consider minor can be very major
>> for them. But for home users of Windows 11, refusal to use a
>> third-party program is just foolishness as far as I'm concerned.
>> Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on producing quality software and in
>> many cases they are way behind the competition in my opinion.
>
> Yes, I also use third-party software. For this new Windows 11 system,
>I started again from scratch and only installed my 'must have' add ons
>and will install others as the need (re-)arises.

I copied 10 from my old computer to my new one last October, then
upgraded to 11. A few weeks ago, to fix a few problems I was having, I
did a clean reinstallation of 10. It was a lot of work (about a week),
but my problems are gone.

> My point is that whether we like it or not, we *have* to adjust, there
>is no other choice.

Understood, but that bothers me less than it bothers you

>Do we get anything in return? AFAIC, no. For me,
>Windows 11 offers no functionality over 8.1 (or even Vista and XP (never
>used 7)).

No new functionality (or at least very little), but at least in some
respects, some improved functionality (don't ask me for details; as
usual, when I move to a new version, I put the previous one out of my
head and forget its details).

> Bottom line: Let's agree to 'disagree'.

OK.

>> Is Windows 11 perfect? No. Far from it. Yes, I wish it had been
>> designed more to my liking, but it's been easy to adjust it more to my
>> liking and I'm generally happy with it.
>>
>> > But yes, I have 'upgraded' too, but only because 1) a new machine came
>> >with Windows 11 (and most likely could not be 'downgraded' to 8.1) and
>>
>> Couldn't you clean install 8.1?
>
> 8.1 was an OEM license, i.e. no install media and not allowed to be
>used on another computer. And it's unlikely that it would work_on/
>support the new system.
>
>> >2) the wife's 8.1 machine ran out of (Extended) support , so I 'had' to
>> >'upgrade' it to 10).
>>
>> Had to? Not as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Agreed, that's why I wrote "had" in scare quotes.

OK.

> Thanks for your response and sharing your view(s).

You're welcome and thanks for sharing yours. I think we don't really
disagree as much as it seemed at first. It's more that we say much the
same things in different ways, and that some things that we both don't
like bother you more than they bother me..