Windows 11 Is The Worst Windows Ever Period.

[UCyborg]

Programmers are more productive using C# rather than C++. Don't know if .NET is actually used in the shell these days, but I've had it loaded in Explorer since many years ago since my favorite QTTabBar is a .NET extension. AFAIK, these sorts of extensions were discouraged by MS, they would also pull .NET in whatever application called open file dialog. Dependency on web technologies is more apparent in Win11 (Hello Google!).

Edited November 18 by UCyborg

[vinifera]

52 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

Don't know if .NET is actually used in the shell these days

 

well thats easy to see
if you manually remove any traces of .net from your system you will see what will fail to run :S

[sunryze]

On 11/18/2024 at 3:13 PM, UCyborg said:

Programmers are more productive using C# rather than C++.

I program in C#, and it is amazing to use. I like it, and I wish more developers would use it over opting with a web app. Also, it's optimized fairly decently (not as good as C, better than Python), but if you use the NativeAOT introduced recently, its identical to C performance.

Most of the issues in Windows 11 are involving things that have been hacked together or are web applications. Don't understand why OOBE couldn't be a .NET app instead of an Edge page. We don't need that running cross platform

[pm9 evil]

On 11/19/2024 at 10:17 PM, sunryze said:

I program in C#, and it is amazing to use. I like it, and I wish more developers would use it over opting with a web app. Also, it's optimized fairly decently (not as good as C, better than Python), but if you use the NativeAOT introduced recently, its identical to C performance.

Most of the issues in Windows 11 are involving things that have been hacked together or are web applications. Don't understand why OOBE couldn't be a .NET app instead of an Edge page. We don't need that running cross platform

i feel like it was just cheaper/quicker in some way to do it like that, dunno though

[sunryze]

1 hour ago, pm9 evil said:

i feel like it was just cheaper/quicker in some way to do it like that, dunno though

web dev is 100% easier and cheaper to do, understanding HTML/CSS/JS is an "easier" and more cross platform thing to know than to understand the whole .NET ecosystem

the issue in my opinion is the easiest choice isnt always the best choice, but in the corporate world, whichever is the fastest and easiest, will save the most money

Edited November 21 by sunryze

[UCyborg]

No sign of .NET being used by shell in Windows 20H2 after disabling QTTabBar (no .NET tabs).

 

Only my favorite password manager remained.

Using Explorer without QTTabBar is so weird, so it's re-enabled.

On 11/19/2024 at 11:17 PM, sunryze said:

I program in C#, and it is amazing to use. I like it, and I wish more developers would use it over opting with a web app.

Even if client runs in a web browser, server-side can still be C#.

[vinifera]

ehh your compositor wouldnt work if you didn't had .net

[sonyu]

On 11/14/2024 at 8:28 AM, j7n said:

When Windows 8 came out, it was the worst crap ever, and now people look fondly upon it in comparison. Lol.

even XP compatible hardware (wddm gpu), can feel the benefits and run faster when using w8 6.2 & wddm 1.2. After Windows XP, this only happens on w8 NT 6.2.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170918122254/https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/b8/2011/10/07/reducing-runtime-memory-in-windows-8/

 

On 11/14/2024 at 8:28 AM, j7n said:

How so? You can compare any business application that came out at the time with what we can get new today and it will be smaller and faster. Back with Win98 we had to install our choice of applications to handle graphics and media, and Windows only did the core. Now they bundle everything but the kitchen sink into Windows, and those programs are rarely optimal.

I agree with this. All was optimized back in the day when resources were limited. Now the cheapest computer has at least 8gb ram + SSD or SATA hdd + bus with amazing bandwidth...  so resource wasting is allowed and nobody cares about it, since w10 also have memory compression... and a lot of pagination... just (started at least this way) to run metro inside a Win32 desktop OS

---

All these bloated OSes (w10 + w11) are the consequence of a TEAM trying, who have the most used OS in the world, deciding how to compete to Apple's iPad back in 2011.

It exactly happened when they wanted to release Windows RT without Win32 for tablets + intel releasing low powered capable atoms + trying to decide if they include Metro on desktop to have more users on non-win32 based apps...

as a result we still have this nonsense aka metro aka mobile apps on desktop and all the desktop interface messed; https://winclassic.net/thread/1652/list-metro-ified-components-windows

 

so.... MS started to left Windows DESKTOP OS in 2015 releasing w10 1507 (10240), and last Windows DESKTOP OS was 1511 (10586).... I don't know an exact term to say what kind of OS is Windows starting with 1607, it's a mobile os with some desktop interface parts? it's a desktop OS with some mobile interface? 

MS left desktop users in 2015. 

Well, what's the point? It always happened the same: an OS released today is slow for current hardware and will fly installed as a downgrade on the hardware released in 4 years from now. The only problem now is that we aren't on Vista days and we have too much background processes, too much metro too much messed up interface, too much WDDM....  it  feels like they're all the time releasing an OS to be run only on gaming hardware.

Long story short, it's already proven Service packs > Windows as a service

NEWER is not BETTER

bonus:

 

Edited November 23 by sonyu

[j7n]

Metro seems to exist mainly to suck up computing power. It didn't solve any real problems that existed at its creation. I looked at the eye-watering sizes of the DLLs of superficially simple SystemApps. It's like the next generation DotNet. Remember the old Microsoft+Intel conspiracy theory, where they work together to boost each other's sales.

Well, those ported applications are NET Framework. Those didn't run smoothly until computers became faster after XP. There were releases of lightweight standalone framework, where you could just dump NET DLLs in the application directory. NLite released such because people resisted installing the full thing. He probably used a virtual machine with lots of memory for the Windows 95 experiment.

If Microsoft named the builds and 2H22 versioning scheme as SP1, SP2, SP3, the performance would stay the same. I recently looked at driver INFs where they had to introduce a new field for the build because 10.0 was frozen in perpetuity.

[vinifera]

"metro" apps ARE .net
they just fancified name for it and called universal-windows-platform (or UWP)
but this s*** is installable with .net 4.5+

Edited November 23 by vinifera

[UCyborg]

If UWP app is written in C# (or Visual Basic), then it's compiled to native code (.NET Native). Though you can also NGEN conventional .NET Framework apps. But what does it matter, UWP is not recommended for new development anyway.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-bloat-its-always-been-that-way/

Besides, most of you are using bloated Chrome or Firefox browsers, JavaScript in V8 is still a turtle compared to native code.

[j7n]

With the web we kinda have no choice to use JavaScript. We could theoretically have one of the big players say: we will download native assemblies from now on with triple certificates signed in blood by Google. But then they would be added on top of existing JavaScript.

But Microsoft single handedly invented their system, and real 3rd party Apps took a while to appear.

That Windows has grown in size with every edition is not controversial. They have to add a radical new way of doing things to convince customers to buy Windows again. And then with the other hand provide compatibility, so that old software somewhat works.

[Tripredacus]

MS tried to make a unified OS, along the lines of their competitors in the mobile market by adding the Metro apps. The ability for Windows, Windows Phone (and later) Xbox to all be able to run the same programs. It was never really a unified OS it just had the appearance of it. You could argue that they just tacked on that functionality, since they didn't make any attempt to make a new desktop OS at all. I highly doubt that Windows Phone had any 9x remnants in it. It was probably too late by the point Windows Phone failed for them to reverse course. Eventually they will have to actually make a new OS for x86 or else they'll lose their way entirely. Maybe they do not have the people left who know how to make an OS from scratch, which may explain why we're still just seeing modified Windows NT OS in both desktop and server environments. Even their Linux support is just tacked on.

[sunryze]

It is important to note that MS recommends nowadays to make apps in the Windows App SDK. It allows them to produce apps compatible with the MS Store and the MSIX packaging style to install itself "like" a UWP app. But it is not a UWP app.

WASDK apps can be made using either Win32 (GDI32/USER32 API) or .NET (WPF/WinForms API). This is why pre-existing apps can just be added to the Store as they have already been made in Win32 style. Honestly it was a good choice on their part; it helps unify "UWP" (which was more notable as just WPF apps), and Win32 apps. As far as performance, both are pretty much the same. Win32 uses C++ (or anything really, if you use the bindings), and .NET uses C#.

As far as how easy it is, undoubtedly it is easier for a novice programmer to learn .NET than to learn Win32. Win32 is archaic, and while that does not make it worse (in fact, it could be more performant), it makes it less appealing as once again, time = money, and whichever saves the most amount of money is what MS will pick. .NET is easier and quicker to produce apps in.

The performance problem with Windows 11 is a result of the transitional period of moving everything to use WASDK. It is an amalgamation of decades worth of APIs and ways to make an app, and MS took this long to hopefully even decide on an app format they will keep. Windows 7 still remains the last version they produced that was unified, and retained one main format to make apps. Windows 8 added UWP, and Windows 10 smashed them all together into a melting pot. Windows 11 added another one and just fueled the fire that is the melting pot of app formats.

TL;DR: Performance issues on Windows 11 are a result of years of indecisive choices of what app format MS wants developers to use. Windows right now is atrocious, taking the time to learn Linux and alternatives to software you use is so worth it and your sanity.

[vinifera]

1 hour ago, sunryze said:

aking the time to learn Linux and alternatives to software you use is so worth it and your sanity

honestly
when they make WINE to play ~90% games (non DOS games)
MS-Windows will DIE