He comes off a showing a anti-ms bias from the get go, and truth be told, I've never heard of him, so it seems like one of those folks jumping on the anti-ms bandwagon.
With that said, here's some of my thoughts to that article.
First he calls it windows 11 the new vista but then just reference's vista just once - there's no logical thought process on why its the new vista. Yes he does write up some criticisms but not in reference or comparison to vista.
Hardware requirements - Windows 11 has rather strict requirements - TPM 2.0, Secure Boot, newer generations of processors, and all that. If you judge these from the perspective of Windows 10 EOL in 2025, they aren't bad. But that's four years into the future. From the current perspective, they are ridiculous. This is just like Vista.
I agree, MS is artificially making TPM 2.0 a requirement when it doesn't need too, perhaps making it optional and then a year or two (after providing lots of notice) make it a requirement. Also the high hardware requirements is questionable. BUT unlike Vista, where low spec'd machines ran vista like crap, MS doesn't want a repeat of that, so its very much NOT like Vista.
System menu - Windows 8 came with a new design, in the early preview builds you could do it, and later you couldn't. Public response: total rejection of the new start screen nonsense, and the techies went all Classic Shell. Now, Windows 11 is doing the same - it has a new menu that has an inefficient design, early on you could switch to the Windows 10 menu, now you cannot. The techies are clamoring for a replacement, including the awesome Open-Shell, a successor to Classic Shell.
The windows 8 start menu was horrible, this isn't bad, its logical and fresh and new. The windows 8 start menu was designed as a touch first interface which is great for tablets but horrible for desktop/laptops. I really don't see "techies" clamoring for the old start menu or a replacement (which there are already a number of utilities to do just that
Touch paradigms - Back in the Windows 8 era, Microsoft (and everyone else) believed that the future would be all touch, forgetting basic human evolution and anatomy. As it happens, Win32 desktop-designed mouse-and-keyboard applications remain the absolute monarch of the desktop, and this will never change. Because we still have only ten fingers, our hands can only do so and so, and no amount of marketing will ever change that. Windows 8 tried with tablet and mobile apps and failed. Windows 11 is trying with phone and mobile apps. This will of course not work, because mobile apps have zero merit or value on the desktop. They work great on tiny, finger-operated devices. They work awfully on big devices, operated by mouse and keyboard.
I think this is a complaint just for the sake of complaining. Win11 has done a great job at enhancing touch capability and improving the experience for tablet or two in one users but (unlike win8) not at the expense of desktop/laptop users. We're not losing any capability or ease of use.
Windows updates & online account - As you can lightly peruse from my Windows 8 Consumer Preview and Enterprise RTM Preview, back then, I complained about the new "strategy" on forcing updates onto users, and the attempts to get users to log into their system with an online (Microsoft) account. In Windows 11 Home Edition, this is almost a must now.
I don't disagree, MS, like others are increasingly going to leverage cloud and online connectivity. Its harder and harder to have an account that is not attached to a MS account. Most people probably won't care, but I understand some privacy minded folks may not care for it.
Performance - For me, Windows 11 is slower than Windows 10. Please disclaim this with the fact I tested only on one hardware piece, my IdeaPad 3 machine (with AMD Ryzen 5 processor and NVMe storage), and that we're still dealing with the preview build of Windows 11. That said, this is not different from what I encountered with Windows 8 back in the day.
It is, no question BUT at best its a developer preview - its a beta and so this complaint is more or less unfounded. He'll have a right to complain once the release version hits the streets and its slower - and yet I'm sure he'll complain that its slower but also why does MS force faster/newer CPUs to be used. You can't really complain about the hardware requirements being high and then complain that its running slow, maybe MS put those requirements in there for a reason, i.e., it needs it Overall for my experience, its been good, the desktop/interaction has been a bit pokey when using apps like Acrobat Pro but overall its not bad.
www.dedoimedo.com
