> If I'm being frivolous, does this mean Microsoft's model is best at fixing Microsoft products because they have trillions of data points on problems with Microsoft products

Do they want to fix Microsoft Products ?

My laptop came with Windows 11. Windows update broke hibernate few weeks back. When laptop gets out of hibernate - Wifi works for a few minutes and then once in a while the Wifi Adapter isn't detected. I need to reboot to fix the issue, this has screwed up my workflow. Wasting a lot of time.

After troubleshooting a lot, I now only hope one day it gets fixed on it's own thanks to some new update.

If Microsoft has money to invest in AI models, they could sure fix Windows 11 which I assume is one of their core products.

I wish in a few years Microsoft realize that screwing over their Desktop users to chase Cloud and AI wasn't worth it. And by that time it's too late to get back the user base.

▲

delecti 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> If Microsoft has money to invest in AI models, they could sure fix Windows 11 which I assume is one of their core products.

On the other hand, what's the return on investment for making Windows 11 better? Your laptop came with Windows 11. Most laptops that come with Windows can't not come with Windows (that is, most laptops are only available in SKUs that ship with Windows).

▲

wtfHN26 an hour ago | parent [-]

> what's the return on investment for making Windows 11 better?

Windows OS is what keeps most users in Microsoft's ecosystem.

I am still on Windows as some software I need to use aren't on Linux.

I am waiting for the day that I can get rid of Windows completely.

When I do that what Microsoft product do you think I will still use ? Office ? Azure ? Copilot ? :)) Outlook ?

No MSFT product ever!

Will I ever recommended Microsoft's products to my clients - Never

Sure, Microsoft has a grip on Enterprise.

Let's see how long that lasts if Windows keeps going downhill.

▲

delecti 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> I am still on Windows as some software I need to use aren't on Linux.

Assume a hypothetical future where all that software gets ported to Linux. How much better would Windows have to get for you to keep using it?

I suspect they've done the math and realize that the slow trickle of users leaving would cost too much time and effort to retain.

▲

fragmede 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> some software I need to use aren't on Linux

Which ones for you?

	▲	girvo 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		VALORANT for me is the only game keeping my gaming desktop on Windows

▲

cyanydeez 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Escaping their programming ability, Window's major issue is everything has backwards compability, so they design everything with spaghetti because they have no choice.

▲

wtfHN26 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Escaping their programming ability, Window's major issue is everything has backwards compability, so they design everything with spaghetti because they have no choice.

I do agree with you on this.

But as a consumer that's not my concern.

I am at least a Windows user since three decades, I know my way around the OS and did extensive troubleshooting. What happens to a normal Windows user ?

I have developed habits and workflow on my machine to optimize my time. Now every time I get back to work I am hoping that it works coming out of hibernate.

Is that how a modern OS should be ?

I have a Windows 10 machine that has stopped getting updates. I am satisfied with that.

I consider that Windows 10 machine 'reliable' now that Microsoft isn't breaking things for me.

	▲	cyanydeez a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		you may be a consumer, but you're on HN, so you're not the average consumer. That's all they care about.

▲

AnthonyMouse an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Backwards compatibility was the one thing Windows got right. It was the only real reason to use it.

But backwards compatibility isn't actually that hard if you're not horrendously mismanaged to begin with. You have some ancient miserable APIs from the 1990s that you still have to support, fine, but that's not actually that bad. Old APIs tend to be small because computers were small that far back, you write a compatibility layer and can keep using it. By definition the old stuff never changes so you only have to do it once.

The actual problem is that Microsoft is full of little fiefdoms. Because what they should do, after becoming a huge behemoth with the resources to do it (which has been the case for more than two decades), is to design a set of good, modern APIs, also only once. Something that you're happy to support forever because you took the time to get it right. Then you only have to support that and the little compatibility layer for truly ancient software.

Instead, they have an army of middle managers who are practically at war with each other to show that they can introduce some kind of novel "improvement", the vast majority of which quickly fall out of favor but then have to be supported indefinitely if you don't want to break backwards compatibility. And that makes backwards compatibility a huge ordeal because every year there is more poorly-engineered rubbish you have to support forever.

▲

gkbrk 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wine has better backwards-compatibility than Windows these days.

	▲	genxy an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The Windows Compatibility Layer for Windows will be Wine someday.