yeah I know what you mean for sure. I do think all the fancy animations and styling which slow every thing down is a real frustration to getting things done quickly. Watched a youtube video where someone went through all the slowdowns in his workflow with mac v windows/linux. Stuff like the slide in/out of virtual desktops v instant swap on win/lnx. The animation may look nice the first time you do it but after you've seen it and waited for it 1000s of times a day, it just gets annoying.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Flip Flopping between macOS and Windows
- Thread starter LiE_
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah I know what you mean for sure. I do think all the fancy animations and styling which slow every thing down is a real frustration to getting things done quickly. Watched a youtube video where someone went through all the slowdowns in his workflow with mac v windows/linux. Stuff like the slide in/out of virtual desktops v instant swap on win/lnx. The animation may look nice the first time you do it but after you've seen it and waited for it 1000s of times a day, it just gets annoying.
Took a screenshot showing the difference between old and new 🤢
I absolutely hate the flat and I hate windows implementation of that more then macos
Want to bet the new MacBooks will have rounded screens like a Samsung Galaxybook. Then the UI will match the hardware. I bet when they release the new version of the OS it will not have rounded corners on older hardware and the rounded corners will only work with matching hardware. That is my guess anyway.
As a huge fan of the aqua interface back in the day the idea that they are bringing back elements of it makes me very happy. I was never a big fan of the flat minimalist UI making everything look like iOS. So these changes people are saying they see in the beta or alpha is exciting to me.
As a huge fan of the aqua interface back in the day the idea that they are bringing back elements of it makes me very happy. I was never a big fan of the flat minimalist UI making everything look like iOS. So these changes people are saying they see in the beta or alpha is exciting to me.
No it is not way better when you have elements of Windows 2000 in the menu ui and different functions buried under old sub menus. Adds in the OS are optional but turned on by default? Telemetry is crazy and privacy is a joke. As soon as Microsoft took Windows off of paid new releases to a rolling release that is perpetually free the product has shifted from the OS to the user. The user is the product just like with Google, Facebook, etc. I don't like that setup at all.
Personally the rolling release is what has deteriorated the experience in Windows ever since. No one expects anything from a new version of Windows other than to be similar to the last. We used to be excited with every new version of Windows and now it is long gone. People will say it is because they reached a peak and I say BS. Anyone who uses Windows knows exactly what can be improved. Why does each release continue to be more bloated than the last needing more and more resources in order to perform when the opposite should happen at least to a degree. Making software more efficient and ending some legacy compatibility would probably go a long way. Improving the base kernel, file system uniting all of the menus and modernizing their UIs. Figuring out how to make the OS easier to use with less clicks per task or action instead of doing the opposite. Start selling new releases of Windows and start making real improvements and make privacy a thing.
Windows is great for what is is. It could be so much better with some pretty small changes.
As an example that is purely observational. My Windows laptop with top of the line Intel processor, lots of ram and ssd. Really overpowered but efficient. Yet if I just turn on and log into my account on Windows and do nothing the processor is running doing a lot of work doing nothing. So what is it doing? My opinion is Telemetry is constantly working the OS in the background.
My MacBook doesn't have any such issues. A M2 MBA that is fanless seems to be as fast or faster than newer Windows laptops and runs longer, cooler, and doesn't have some invisible payload going on in the background.
I remember the days of XP, Windows 2000, Windows 7 which were some of the best Windows releases all of which were paid releases. They were terrible at security which has greatly improved but they were very efficient OS. MS always had Telemetry but it was minimal compared to today. Those OS were faster and more efficient and had more features with new releases. A lot of UI elements from those releases are still in Win 11!! I wish MS would return more to it's roots. Be the hobbyists computer with modularity at the hardware level. Stop poaching data from customers and making them the product you sell.
Yup, Windows 7 was the bomb! Best Windows ever. I prefer the window management of actually closing a program from the upper right BIG ACTIVE AREA X. If you click the teeny tiny microscopic RED dot on MacOS, it does not even really CLOSE the app. No one knows what it really does.
And I always forgotten to mention that when I am speaking of Windows 11, I ALWAYS use StarDock to make it like Windows 7. I actually forget that not everyone does that. Because, you are correct, the current version of Win11 out of the box SUCKS HARD for a multitude of reasons, most of which you have mentioned
Unfortunately, MacOS is not that far behind. One thing I can assure you of is... Glass is NOT the answer. Never has been, never will be.
Let's just agree to disagree with glass. Lol.
I themed my Win 11 to match XP desktop without using stardock. It was fun. I like stardock but I don't want to have to pay for it to get a decent desktop experience and I don't like 3rd party UI added to the mix in Windows. I fear privacy, hacking or performance hit which I know are probably unfounded because stardock has a great and long track record and I have used them a long time ago and liked it. I just didn't feel it was worth it on top of anti virus subscription at the time. I should revisit stardock. Do they allow you to stop any telemetry or is just UI tweaks?
Actually the closing of the windows and not the program running is a Unix OS thing. It is simply the way the modular operating system works as opposed to Windows more monolithic although that has changed a bit over the years. I am sure that Apple could change this behavior but once you get used to it like most MacOS users you just know what to do.
MacOS is geared for multi tasking and efficient enough to have several programs running at once and can suspend them instead of close them so you can just get back to what you were doing as quickly as possible saving you the steps of saving, closing, opening, then working it is simply suspended in ram ready to go when you get back to it. Old school people like myself are not used to this behavior and we're taught this is a way for corruption or lost files to occur, bog down your system and potentially cause errors. With older OS like Dos, the Win 95-98, and on to Millennium edition you had to save your work as you were writing to avoid data loss and using multiple programs at once or without closing would bog down the system. Now things are completely different even on Win 11. However, for us used to doing things a different way it is just an adjustment. Obviously you don't want multiple programs running forever and can simply select quit program after you close the window. An extra step but it also confirms your decision which I like so it doesn't bother me personally but if you are used to Windows I can see it would be annoying.
At the end of the day all operating systems have quirks unique to them. Some people like them and some don't and when I tally up quirks of Windows 11 vs MacOS I have less annoying things to deal with on MacOS than in Windows and since I personally don't have software I can only use on one platform I am free to simply use what I prefer on a daily basis. I like Linux, BSD, Windows, MacOS, ChromeOS but I end up using my MacBook the most because I enjoy using it the best.
Apple has done far better with MacOS than Windows at least in the last decade in terms of laptops and desktops penetrating a lot of Windows marketshare with lower pricing or more flexible pricing with MBP with a regular not pro chip or buying a gen behind MBA pricing is very competitive when say before m chips pricing wasn't as good.
Neither of them is perfect and a lit to be desired. It would be great if we had more than essentially a duopoly between MS and Apple. I want another player. With more competition on the laptop/desktop OS space things would change for the better.
If Google was smart they would invest in ChromeOS to be a viable alternative to Windows and Apple not just a cheap OS for kids in schools.
Then with another major player with money Apple and MS would have to be more competitive with their software and hardware.
So you just have to choose the lesser of ***** or evils. Everything and every OS is a compromise.
I themed my Win 11 to match XP desktop without using stardock. It was fun. I like stardock but I don't want to have to pay for it to get a decent desktop experience and I don't like 3rd party UI added to the mix in Windows. I fear privacy, hacking or performance hit which I know are probably unfounded because stardock has a great and long track record and I have used them a long time ago and liked it. I just didn't feel it was worth it on top of anti virus subscription at the time. I should revisit stardock. Do they allow you to stop any telemetry or is just UI tweaks?
Actually the closing of the windows and not the program running is a Unix OS thing. It is simply the way the modular operating system works as opposed to Windows more monolithic although that has changed a bit over the years. I am sure that Apple could change this behavior but once you get used to it like most MacOS users you just know what to do.
MacOS is geared for multi tasking and efficient enough to have several programs running at once and can suspend them instead of close them so you can just get back to what you were doing as quickly as possible saving you the steps of saving, closing, opening, then working it is simply suspended in ram ready to go when you get back to it. Old school people like myself are not used to this behavior and we're taught this is a way for corruption or lost files to occur, bog down your system and potentially cause errors. With older OS like Dos, the Win 95-98, and on to Millennium edition you had to save your work as you were writing to avoid data loss and using multiple programs at once or without closing would bog down the system. Now things are completely different even on Win 11. However, for us used to doing things a different way it is just an adjustment. Obviously you don't want multiple programs running forever and can simply select quit program after you close the window. An extra step but it also confirms your decision which I like so it doesn't bother me personally but if you are used to Windows I can see it would be annoying.
At the end of the day all operating systems have quirks unique to them. Some people like them and some don't and when I tally up quirks of Windows 11 vs MacOS I have less annoying things to deal with on MacOS than in Windows and since I personally don't have software I can only use on one platform I am free to simply use what I prefer on a daily basis. I like Linux, BSD, Windows, MacOS, ChromeOS but I end up using my MacBook the most because I enjoy using it the best.
Apple has done far better with MacOS than Windows at least in the last decade in terms of laptops and desktops penetrating a lot of Windows marketshare with lower pricing or more flexible pricing with MBP with a regular not pro chip or buying a gen behind MBA pricing is very competitive when say before m chips pricing wasn't as good.
Neither of them is perfect and a lit to be desired. It would be great if we had more than essentially a duopoly between MS and Apple. I want another player. With more competition on the laptop/desktop OS space things would change for the better.
If Google was smart they would invest in ChromeOS to be a viable alternative to Windows and Apple not just a cheap OS for kids in schools.
Then with another major player with money Apple and MS would have to be more competitive with their software and hardware.
So you just have to choose the lesser of ***** or evils. Everything and every OS is a compromise.
Last edited:
We are similar, but different
I got my start on DOS and Windows3.0. Stayed there for 20 years or so mainly fixing/teaching windows. And, like you said, SAVING often I am a simple man (yeah, right) but I like a large X to close whatever it is. Or a RED circle. Both of those basically mean STOP/END.I recently got into the Mac eco system as I am getting older. One system, and my photos/files are wherever I want them to be. Same with email. I am using the built in Mac email app. Never thought I would say that
AI am keeping it as simple as possible. The new M4 mini is OUTSTANDING. As is my brand new iPad Pro 13. Two insanely good products IMHO. And my Mac Book Air M3 does not suck either. So, somewhat by accident rather than design, I went all in on Mac.I love Parallels because it works very well. And like you, I can/do use whatever OS I want. Heck, I bet even OS2 is still around somewhere
But I have Win 11 ARM and Ubuntu.I wish MS had done Windows 7.5 Or Windows 7 Pro. This whole 8 skip 9 go to 10 to 11 debacle has not been fun. So, again, when necessary Stardock to the rescue for me.
My computer before the mini was an Intel NUC Phantom Canyon. IMHO best computer Intel ever build. Solid as a brick, FAST, and SILENT. I hated to let it go, but the siren song of simplicity called my name. I had always had an iPhone, so just being able to text from the mini is huge. I probably may possibly have gotten to Mac sooner, as I would have affairs every now and again with a mac mini. But really, at the risk of sounding crazy, it was those microscopic colored dots that drove me back to Windows. I am a UI/UX guy for websites, and that goes against every single thing ever learned about UI/UX in the past twenty years. As proven by the fact that they (the colored dots) have not changed in twenty years.
End rant
Rock on. Enjoy your evening.ps on my Windows 11 ARM install, I do NOT use Stardock. I do not use Windows much at all except for that freaking excellent Solitaire game. This is again, about the aforementioned simplicity factor. Less is more.
Last edited:
Not sure what you're complaining about here. Are you saying that because Windows still has some menu features remaining from the older versions of Windows NT from which all modern Windows versions have descended that the UI is crap? Yet macOS, even with many of the same elements as the original Mac OS X 10.1 still remaining in the UI is somehow different?
Windows hasn't become significantly more processor or RAM intensive since the Windows 8 days (in fact, even Windows 8 tended to perform better than Windows 7). Windows 8 through 11 have all run pretty much the same on similar hardware. That's why there is so much uproar about Microsoft ending support for 8+ year-old hardware - there are literally millions of 10+ year old Windows computers technically able to run Windows 11 perfectly fine except for Microsoft's artificial hardware support limitations.
How? What about the base kernel do you think needs significant improvement?
Same question.
Well, as far as "modernizing UIs" go, it seems like at least since the release of Windows 10 and the modern "flat" UI, it has been Microsoft creating modern desktop UIs and macOS and Linux environments following their lead. Other than apparently trying to re-invent the Windows Vista / Mac OS X 10.4 experience with Liquid Glass in the current beta cycle, Apple certainly hasn't really done much on the "modernization" of UIs in nearly 15 years.
Uniting the menus in Windows I certainly can agree with, but I think progress is still steadily happening in that area in Windows. At this stage, the places that are still using "legacy" UI elements (ie, Device Management, some utilities, certain settings still buried in Control Panel, Group Policy and other Admin tools) are things that generally still work very well and are very seldom used by end-users.
Unless you're talking about the menu design in applications themselves, in which case that will never happen because Windows doesn't (and never will, hopefully) have the "menu perpetually at the top of the screen" design that macOS has and application developers are free to design their menus however they see fit.
You mean like closing an application? Or switching between virtual desktops? Or arranging multiple application windows on large screens? Or having dynamic contextual menus to complete common tasks? Because right now Windows has macOS and Linux beat in all those aspects, and that doesn't seem like it is likely to change any time soon.
Really doubt it is telemetry. Telemetry doesn't take nearly enough bandwidth to cause that kind of a slowdown and if it were the cause, it would be constant, not just when you first log in. In my experience it has been either bloatware from the hardware vendor (Dell is bad for this, their management tools are pretty awful - I run into this same issue on my work laptop and it doesn't affect any of my other older laptops), or it is sometimes Windows update (generally if you haven't used your laptop in a while). Couple this with the fact that Intel mobile processors are just garbage these days, and it is easy to see how this can happen on a Windows laptop.
This is one of the few areas that Apple absolutely blows away everything else - the M series processors are a massive performance improvement over x86 on mobile devices and it is not even close.
Windows XP (and to a lesser extent, Windows 2000) were most PC users' first introduction to a modern operating system ("modern" in this sense meaning fully 32-bit with protected memory, multi-threading, pre-emptive multitasking, and real multi-user security). Compared to the world they were coming from (either DOS-based Windows or Classic Mac OS) the reliability and responsiveness of using XP or 2000 was a massive improvement. I think this experience is why many people tend to view that era with a particularly rosy set of glasses. Windows 7 also has some of this (though to a lesser extent) partly because of the terrible experience that was Windows Vista and Windows 8.
From a security, UI, and stability perspective, Windows 10 is a far better operating system than any version of Windows that came before it and Windows 11 has some improvements over Win 10 (though also some back-steps, such as the relatively ****** Start menu and Task bar).
You want Microsoft to go back to making BASIC interpreters for 1970's microcomputers? Because they haven't been "the hobbyists computer" since long before the haydays of Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect.
I don't think Stardock does anything with telemetry, but their Object Desktop applications are generally pretty decent (except for Deskscapes - that one seemed to suffer some serious memory leak issues, not sure if they've ever fixed it). I use Start11, Groupy, Fences, and Multiplicity and they all run just fine without any apparent overhead issues. I don't run Windowblinds (that would be the product that actually skins the UI itself), so can't comment on that one, though.
This has nothing to do with "modular", "modern", "monolithic", or "microkernel" operating systems. The Mac OS design of having a window control that closes the window but not one that exits the application dates back to the Classic Mac OS. Not sure which Unix environments might work the "mac" way, but I've used a number of Linux desktop environments and none of them follow that design. Even Windows used to require users to quit applications with either a "File >> Exit" or Alt-F4 hotkey (the "X" to quit applications was first introduced in Windows 95).
It is actually possible (and quite trivial) to write a Windows application that does not quit when all of its windows are closed. There are many applications that do this.
DOS-based Windows and Classic Mac OS both suffered from these reliability issues (ie, no protected memory and very poor multitasking), but this was far less of an issue for 32-bit operating systems, even in the early 1990s (ie, OS/2, Windows NT, BeOS, NeXT, Rhapsody, Unix, Linux, etc.)
There's a reason why modern Windows is based on NT and modern MacOS is based on NeXT/Rhapsody.
Desktop OS's are pretty much a commodity now. Selling an OS as a stand-alone product isn't really a thing anymore (with the exception of maybe volume licensing), so I think Google rightly understands that the real value is in the software and services they can offer on top of Chrome OS.
In that vein, I think Google is poised to pick up some pretty major wins. Google has managed to do something nobody has been able to do since the early 1990s - be a viable threat to the MS Office hegemony. Google's Office products aren't just being deployed in classrooms anymore. There are enterprise shops deploying Google's office products instead of MS Office.
They killed ChromeOS and they're going to be using Android for their netbooks. I don't see those devices challenging PCs/Macs anytime soon.
I have to disagree with you there. Windows has gotten more bloated, just consider the overhead needed Recall.
While not scientific evidence, but anecdotal my work laptop ran fine on windows 10, and I had upgrade a couple of months ago to windows 11. The machine just crawls, a clear and measurable decrease in performance on the same hardware.
Until recently (and it still may be a thing), gamers refused to upgrade because playing games on windows 11 was slower then 10. I understand windows 11 introduced items to improve gaming and so this item may not be relevant, but I remember the complaining on reddit.
Windows kernel is based on Windows NT (1993) and its been patched/updated, and new items added on. Basically changes sitting on changes. I mean look at decades of APIs it needs to support, while backwards compatibility is one of windows advantages it has some disadvantages, like having the kernel using so much old APIs and code.
Back when windows NT was a thing, it was using a trusted local computer and not zero-trust and always connected - an issue that Microsoft continually fights with its zero-day patching. ITs a monolithic design, so issues there will shut down the entire system and kernel mode access for applications. If memory serves me, this was the very reasons why Crowdstrike shut the entire PC world down, it had access and there was a bug, so PCs just shutdown
There's more but suffice to say that the kernel which dates back to Windows NT is showing its age, and sagging under all of the new technology and changes
> They killed ChromeOS and they're going to be using Android for their netbooks. I don't see those devices challenging PCs/Macs anytime soon.
I'd like to try Harmony OS in a virtual machine one of these days. It could be a huge up and coming operating system but I don't even know if it's legal to run it in the US.
> I have to disagree with you there. Windows has gotten more bloated, just consider the overhead needed Recall.
That happens when you try to support everything before you and you provide multiple UIs to make everyone somewhat happy.
>While not scientific evidence, but anecdotal my work laptop ran fine on windows 10, and I had upgrade a couple of
> months ago to windows 11. The machine just crawls, a clear and measurable decrease in performance on the same hardware.
Windows 11 flies on my 2020 desktop build and it really flies on this new laptop. It may be that they're using more instruction sets from newer processors to speed things up in W11 vs W10.
> Windows kernel is based on Windows NT (1993) and its been patched/updated, and new items added on. Basically
> changes sitting on changes. I mean look at decades of APIs it needs to support, while backwards compatibility is
> one of windows advantages it has some disadvantages, like having the kernel using so much old APIs and code.
I thought it was based on VMS from Mr. Cutler.
My work laptop is > 5 years old, so its not the most robust, it originally came with 8GB of ram, I upgraded the ram myself to 16, and under windows 11 I can memory utilization is significantly higher then windows 10
Yes, Dave Cutler as the lead architect, and I'm sure he borrowed heavily from his time at Dec. The VMS kernel from what google tells me is also a monolithic design, which makes sense, as mainframes and "minis" were largely monolithic designs
Windows PCs have a similar issue that people complain about Apple - not enough RAM.
You can find a fair number of Windows laptops with 8 GB of RAM at Best Buy. And a lot of models come with 16. Lunar Lake has the option of 16 or 32 GB of RAM. I can't see 8 GB as being enough if you do anything more than email, videos and web browsing.
I'm hoping that Apple's move to 16 GB of RAM as the base will encourage PC makers to start at 16 GB of RAM in their low-end models and put in 32 GB in their midrange models.
Dave Cutler took a lot of VMS engineers with him and I was one of the people that received an email from him when he got it up and running at Microsoft. There was a story that a lot of the WNT code had VMS headers on the code modules.
Windows and macOS just take all the RAM they can get and will only release it, if required.
Win11 is at ease with 8GB RAM even if it shows almost 100% RAM used as long as you aren't using Virtual machines or some well known memory hogs.
Similar but different, I think macos employs a superior approach. More often then not, when you see ram being utilized on windows to a high degree, you'll be incurring performance slow downs, where as that doesn't happen until the ram pressure goes into the red.
Yes and I've seen videos where people boot into windows and use it with 4gb of ram, just because you can doesn't mean you should. My work needs are such that the tools for my job required more then 8gb of ram.
I'd have to reboot my work laptop, and I have too much stuff open and its painfully slow - not worth rebooting right now.
I have a MacBook Pro 16" with a Retina Display and run exclusively Windows on it.
I love my MBP2015. Got it for peanuts and it's really a gorgeous system to use.
Sometimes I boot into Monterey, just to re-confirm that I don't like MacOS.
Nope. Windows just take all RAM it finds. Having 100% RAM used does not slow down the system.
And, even excepted when I edit videos or compile, I rarely get 100% RAM from my 16 GB.
Android and ChromeOS are two birds of the same feather. They are highly modified skinned Linux distributions. There are already decently-running desktop adaptations of Android (ie, Samsung's Dex) that could support a "classic" desktop paradigm without changing anything under the hood. In a sense, ChromeOS is getting killed really in name only - the actual important functionality that it provides different to what Android provides will likely be rolled into Android (if it isn't already there) and Android will become Google's unified platform.
As far as challenging PCs and Macs - that remains to be seen, but do consider a few things:
- The biggest issue facing PC users right now is power consumption. "Desktop" Android could very well bring a very functional ARM-based computing platform to the desktop with support for applications from major software publishers (including Microsoft themselves). ARM-based Windows has continued to stumble (for reasons you yourself have mentioned - legacy stuff).
- Linux has been making gains on the desktop as well, but its biggest weakness continues to be its fragmentation of distros and desktop environments and lack of consumer-facing support. Android could very well be seen by end consumers (whether true or not) as a single unifying alternative PC operating system.
- Many people already use their Android/iOS devices far more than any desktop devices, so the system is familiar and (more importantly) comfortable for users.
Recall and other AI is definitely going to add overhead, so I stand corrected there, however I haven't really found any performance difference between Windows 10 and 11 on my machines. I would expect the same to be the case for any OS that adopts AI tools, however.
Many very vocal gamers did. This is a theme that dates back to the Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7 days though. Gamers always wait to upgrade because they're worried about extra overhead. Whether those worries are warranted has been something that varied over the years. In my experience (as a very casual gamer), the only time an upgrade created a measurable slowdown on the same hardware was when I upgraded from Windows XP to Windows 7.
Yes, modern Windows is based on a kernel that evolved from the original Windows NT kernel that was released in 1993. Linux and all its variants are based on a kernel that evolved from.. well.. Linux which was first released in 1991. Modern Mac OS and all its descendents is based on a kernel that evolved from the original NeXTSTEP which was first released in 1989 and which itself evolved from Mach and BSD (the latter of which was first developed in the late 1970s).
All modern operating systems are based on "patched/updated" kernels that originated before the mid-1990s.
Considering that that "patched/updated" Windows NT kernel powers everything from the Hypervisor hosting all XBox games to most desktop computers to the same Hypervisor underpinning the entirety of Azure itself, I'd say it does pretty good for itself. As do all the other "old iron" operating systems mentioned above.
You are right, though, to some extent. Microsoft's approach has been to continue to support a lot of legacy applications, and there is some compromise involved in that, especially when it comes to trying to move Windows to more modern hardware. This is where Apple has had an advantage - they only have one narrow set of hardware to support and relatively few desktop application vendors to corral, so when they want to change something drastic (like dropping 32-bit support), they can do so with relatively little risk.
Of course, you can see the other side of that compromise, though. Every major change Microsoft tries to make (like dropping support for relateively old hardware) is met with some serious push-back. On top of that, Microsoft has to support some pretty old applications (for instance, the consulting firm I work for still uses Lotus Notes - though we are working our way off of it. 30 years of legacy is very hard to migrate, especially when no direct equivalent actually exists and you have to change an entire set of your company's core business processes to adapt to a new system).
That being said - at least as recently as Windows 10, Microsoft has done quite a good job at walking that tightrope. Windows is a very stable secure operating system that performs well on most relatively modern hardware.
The real issue with Crowdstrike was not so much that the NT kernel is monolithic, but that Microsoft allows software companies to access the kernel for things like EPDR software (Crowdstrike and WatchGuard being two major EPDR systems). There are actually advantages to allowing those systems access to the kernel (and some are very imporant advantages, especially for systems like Crowdstrike), but as Crowdstrike illustrated, there are also some serious disadvantages. Ironically, the outage was not actually a "bug" per se, but was Crowdstrike doing exactly what it was designed to do (stop suspected malware - including possibly compromized kernel-level drivers - from executing at boot-up). It all came about because what was basically a signature update tagged a valid Windows system file as malware and caused it to be blocked, effectively bricking the system.
I do suspect that this is one aspect of Windows we will see changed in the (relatively) near future. Part of the reason why Microsoft is pushing so hard for ending support on older hardware likely stems from some of the security issues that come from supporting older hardware. TPM is part of that puzzle, but also eliminating CPUs that have known security exploits as well (remember Spectre and Meltdown).
As an aside, Windows NT is not as monolithic as you imply here. It was actually designed as a hybrid kernel and followed some of the same design philosophy as the Mach kernel that Mac OS is based on. It is probably a bit more monolithic than Mac OS, but it is actually less monolithic than Linux, for example.
There is definitely some legacy code in the Windows NT kernel that survives to this day (and has to for compatibility's sake), but it is just that - a compromise - and there are a great many people (myself included) that prefer the enhanced compatibility of modern Windows over the "break it and make the customers live with it" approach that Apple takes.
Kind of yes but mostly no. Dave Cutler and the VMS team were brought into Microsoft to develop Windows NT, but it was not directly based on VMS. Of course, being that the team would do what they already know, the design philosophy of NT itself would follow the same design philosophy of VMS, but as I recall, no actual code from VMS was used in the design of Windows NT.
So it's kind of the same thing as saying Linux is based on Unix. They are certainly very, very similar systems with similar design philosophies, but they are not at all the same thing.
Interesting trivia (this based solely on an interview with David Cutler on YouTube that is now a year old, so things may have changed) Cutler is apparently still at Microsoft working on the Hyper-V team. The interview I linked to above is actually quite interesting.
I was close to switching today, but I talked myself out of it. Caught up in the excitement of putting together a spec and the prospect of doing a build.
I like the simplicity of my M4 Mac mini, everything works for me right now without any issues. GFN fills the gap of casual gaming with friends and when I eventually get bored again I just don't renew my sub.
I like the simplicity of my M4 Mac mini, everything works for me right now without any issues. GFN fills the gap of casual gaming with friends and when I eventually get bored again I just don't renew my sub.