And with all kinds of telemetry they collected, they managed to create the pinnacle of UI/UX redesign, as shown in the Settings Panels in Windows 11, right?
People are weirdly attached to Control Panel. What's better: Control Panel -> Network and Internet -> Network and Sharing Center -> Change Adapter Settings -> Properties on selected NIC -> IPv4 -> Properties to set a static IP or Settings -> Network and Internet -> Ethernet -> IP Assignment
People got used to where things were. That does no indicate good UX/UI.
I'm not sure that's directly on control panel so much as which windows version you pick to look at, over the years it's changed as they try to make it friendly to different audiences. In win2k it's not very deep to get at, by default there's network places on the desktop you can right click to skip a few steps. Similarly they could improve the win8+ settings app but presumably they think win11's version is the best they can offer.
The problem is that this doesn't let you configure X detail about the NIC, most users don't need to ever configure that so they don't have that option in their updated control panel. The problem is that sometimes people do need to configure X, Microsoft can't just say to people you can no longer configure X, if it's a necessity for some use-cases. Their solution is to just leave the old legacy control panel software laying around forever for those situations. And that's bad UX/UI and bad for security, to leave this ancient unmaintained code on everyone's system.
Just because of incompetent modern design department "simplifying" everything to a point of unusability. Is windows supposed to be used for serious applications or is it just a consumer product for tech-illiterates? Microsoft doesn't seem to know. Why can I even buy a "enterprise" or "professional" version, this is clearly not intended to be used by me.
What is the X in this scenario? What do you need to configure that's not available in settings? I absolutely do not doubt there's _something_, but I bet it's not an every-day sort of thing, and I'm absolutely sure it's not something that was outright removed. If anything has been removed in a version of Windows it's always been able to be restored either via registry or by CLI. And in the case of CLI, that's what Linux users ask for anyway, so I'm not sure what the issue is.
Then why the fsck gets in my way ? Why 1px borders when i have to resize windows ? Why no place on the titlebar when one can click and drag on second monitor ? Why the stupid taskbar where some windows are hidden and others not. Why the stupid alt-tab where it rearanges the window stack ? Why ?
Speaking as someone who has had to implement their own chrome in Windows for aesthetic reasons, this is on the developer for not using the standard chrome.
> Why no place on the titlebar when one can click and drag on second monitor ?
Not trying to shame, but I assume English is not your first language. I'm having a hard time comprehending this. It seems like a complaint about dragging the title bar? I would assume this is another non-standard chrome issue.
> Why the stupid taskbar where some windows are hidden and others not.
This again is something that's up to the developer. It's definitely frustrating, but I would argue it's only more prevalent in newer versions of the OS because there's just more software out there. This is also an issue of developers making choices that go against proper UX/UI.
> Why the stupid alt-tab where it rearanges the window stack ?
Alt-tab has always been FIFO. It's always been based on "What's the last thing you had in the foreground"
I propose we use our powers of reasoning and knowledge of chemistry as a species to try to do better than just rolling the dice and hoping for the best. Economic suicide and blind luck are not the only options. But for some economic suicide appears to be the goal.
Yes, of course there are people who really want to do those. But op was presenting their main point of view related to "the slow evaporation" part.
Like op, more and more people can't get past the idea of starting or contributing to FOSS is no longer worth their time, due to various reasons, such as: their free labor of love was turned into another corporate money making tool.
OK? But I'm not arguing that there don't exist tensions between employers and employees, of course there are.
I'm saying that liking isolation and not wanting to interact with others isn't good for employers, and don't be surprised if they push back on it. It amounts to saying, I only want to do the fun parts of my job, not the boring but necessary bits, like co-ordinating with other humans.
Surely the C-suites of the company will employ whatever brilliant ideas that we talk over the water cooler. The water cooler is the fountain of innovation after all.
Perhaps they should put all the water coolers in the executives' offices, so they can listen to all the brilliant conversations that take place at the water cooler.
To be fair, when i worked at IBM Research (Watson), there were collaboration areas at the end of each hall.
They got used quite often, and there are plenty of times where someone noticed another team or person working on something and discovered it applied to what they were doing and collaborated.
One example from an area i know well - if you look at static single assignment form for compilers, which is the basis of all optimizing compilers these days, two people came up with the static single assignment part, but had no idea how to create it fast , and ran into some others whiteboarding control dependence for other reasons, and realized that it solved their problem.
Why is it that every time someone tried to push RTO agenda in a thread, "water cooler talk" has always been pushed like it is one of most important thing in a job?
Is "water cooler talk" the new "open office layout"?
> Is "water cooler talk" the new "open office layout"?
Yes. It used to be that "water cooler talk" was considered an unproductive waste of time. But for people pushing an RTO agenda, it suddenly became the go-to argument for RTO. Very often, the same PHBs use this to push RTO, who back in the day complained about people doing "water cooler talk" on company time.
At the same time, open office or cubicle layouts are proven to be detrimental to work output, concentration, health and happiness. But same as RTO, it is not about any of that, nor about collaboration. It is about PHBs fearing their loss of purpose and control.
> .. been pushed like it is one of most important thing in a job?
because it is actually one of the most important thing in a job. During Covid, work was boring as hell because there were no spontaneous interactions or small breaks to chit chat with other people.
And guess what, most of the colleagues I have talked to mentioned that they missed those kind of interactions. Barring some super introvert ones who just want to be left alone, but those are a tiny minority.
depends on the tool and purpose. There was skill in navigating a file system, and now the next generation (obbscured from folder systems by mobile) seem to be losing that ability.
You can look at it in two ways, neither are particularly wrong unless your job is in fact to navigate file systems.
Of course, LLMs would be more useful to many more people if they could be used without skill, and were as "useful" as a human mentor.
That's true, and they lack that capability. Many people seem to react as though this means they're missing all value, however. I find them incredibly useful; it just isn't possible to get much value out without investing effort myself.
