Windows 11

[Scott5114]

Compatibility issues are on Microsoft's end, not LibreOffice's–LibreOffice and Microsoft Office both save to open standard formats. For each of them, there is a standard document that says precisely how files of that type are supposed to be parsed and displayed. Microsoft Office is simply so sloppily coded that it doesn't get a result that matches the standard, probably because it's too fixated on maintaining backwards compatibility with Microsoft Word 1868 or something, which is the usual cause of sloppy work from Microsoft.

I've done extensive work in both Excel and LibreOffice, and I can think of exactly one feature that Excel has and LibreOffice doesn't.

[KeithE4Phx]

Not that simple...
Gimp is a good tool - but I heard general comment "yeah, its somewhat usable - but not a match to photoshop"
Libreoffice is OK for simple files; compatibility with something more loaded is not 100%. If you need nothing more than plain text, google web-based tools are just good enough.
I can get along with anything, but....  Word is simply better.
I still struggle to find something similar to XnView.

It's not to say that windows version of MS office is perfect. But there is no match for Excel.

LibreOffice Writer is as good at most things as M$ Word these days.  I used both at work when writing test procedures that required automatic step numbering based on paragraph indentation.  Compatibility was 98%, except for the quirks in the numbering that both programs suffer.  Writer and Word both suck at it, but suck differently, mainly regarding initial setup for what you want.

I'm not a spreadsheet power user, but for what I need it for, LO Calc and M$ Excel are identical in every way, including file compatibility.

I've never used XnView, but the new MP version runs under Windows, Mac, and Linux, as opposed to the Classic version, which was Windows-only.  Still not free, though, and since I don't have a professional need for it, I won't bother.

[vdeane]

Oh, it's entirely due to corporate BS. Paying for hundreds of Windows licenses because the company standardized on some piece of commercial software that only runs on Windows. Even if there's an open-source program that does the same thing, can't change anything on the users because Debra in the dress code enforcement division lost her shit that one time an upgrade added a new icon to the toolbar and the button she needed was no longer the ninth one from the left. (We could require critical thinking of Debra, but that'd make sense, better to yell at IT for "disrupting her workflow".)

It's amazing how hard it is for some people to use computers (particularly boomers).  It's as if simply putting something on a computer is enough for all thinking skills used elsewhere to go out the window.  Especially if it contradicts how things "have always been done".  It's amazing how many people at work think 80s mainframes are easier to use than modern webapps, simply because that's what NYSDOT used between when they got computers in the first place and relatively recently (the timesheets only switched a couple years ago, and everything else only switched six months ago).

IT is even worse than one would think, though, and it comes down to how the commercial software was selected in the first place.  One would assume that the commercial software is used because it fits the company's criteria or has enterprise management features.  This is not the case.  Finding the best cost/benefit ratio for software selection is not how IT works.  Instead, IT managers ask themselves "who is the big kahuna who has already solved this problem" (that's the actual phrase my boss on my internship used).  This basically means the most expensive software from the biggest company will always be selected, regardless of whether it's the lowest cost option for the features needed or whether it even works the best way for the company needs at all.

This seems to have carried forward into the home market.  Everybody uses Windows because Microsoft is the "big kahuna" of the operating system world, and because that's what they've always used.  Doesn't matter that distros like Mint and Ubuntu are just as user-friendly if not more so.  They'd rather just stick with what they know, even when "what they know" removes features for no reason and stops being secure and reliable.

[J N Winkler]

In regard to the OP's question, I don't plan even to assess my current laptop for Windows 11, let alone accept a free upgrade to it (which I suspect may eventually be forced on us, like Windows 10 was).

As for whether the various flavors of *nix operating systems have an opportunity to expand desktop/laptop market share at the expense of Windows, I think there is still a degree of lock-in arising from the fact that industry-standard software packages--not just Microsoft Office or Adobe products like Photoshop and Acrobat, but also AutoDesk's AutoCAD and Bentley's MicroStation CAD suites--are native to Windows.

Yes, there are Linux equivalents for many of these (even the CAD programs); yes, many of the file formats involved have cross-platform support if they are not actually open standards; and yes, feature withdrawal and coercive attempts to force the cloud onto home users (Adobe does this with Document Cloud, and Bentley does this with Bentley Connect) are becoming entrenched as negatives of the Windows world.

But it's still true that familiarity with a major Windows program is a marketable skill in ways that expertise with its Linux equivalent is not.  Also, collaboration is more straightforward when everyone involved is using the same program and operating system, even if the file formats involved are supported by multiple operating systems running on different platforms.  For example, if you receive a Word document and are expected to return it with suggested changes annotated using Track Changes, LibreOffice will probably handle the job just fine, but with Word there is no doubt (this is partly a consequence of Microsoft's slipshod implementation of its own standard).  In some settings, such as state DOTs exchanging CAD files with consultants, there is no flexibility to go outside a given program/OS combination because conformity requirements go well beyond OS and program to things like workspace version.

[Scott5114]

Yes, there are Linux equivalents for many of these (even the CAD programs); yes, many of the file formats involved have cross-platform support if they are not actually open standards [...] But it's still true that familiarity with a major Windows program is a marketable skill in ways that expertise with its Linux equivalent is not. 

I've never touched the current version of Photoshop or Illustrator, but I would have no qualms with marketing myself as proficient in either, because I am proficient in Gimp and Inkscape; I am confident enough in my grasp of the generalized key skills in using both (for example, using vector addition/subtraction tools to build up a vector object) that I could adapt to using the industry-standard product if it were required of me in a job. These key skills are more important than proficiency in a specific program, because they are what's retained when a commercial program inevitably reshuffles its user interface in a .0 release. The only necessary orientation period would be to identify any differences in terminology between the two programs and locate the functions in the commercial UI, both of which could be accomplished through a simple Web search.

[JoePCool14]

In some settings, such as state DOTs exchanging CAD files with consultants, there is no flexibility to go outside a given program/OS combination because conformity requirements go well beyond OS and program to things like workspace version.

This is a very important point. I'm taking a course called Highway Engineering at university, and for our design project, we have to use a version of AutoCAD specifically customized by WisDOT. It has all their standards built right in, so it's the only choice. I can't even download that to my computer unfortunately, like I can with the standard AutoCAD for students.

[jakeroot]

Been using Windows 11 for a couple weeks now. Here's my more in-depth thoughts so far:

* Windows Explorer seems slow, especially when browsing OneDrive folders. Right-clicking takes too long to open the context menu.
* On context menus: too many things are under the "show more options" drop-down.
* The quick settings are nice, although changing audio output is harder than I wish it was.
* Significantly fewer options are available by right-clicking anywhere on the taskbar. Fortunately, right-clicking the Windows icon still brings up everything.
* I miss the compact taskbar quite a lot.

The big issue I've had since Tuesday evening: explorer.exe not starting correctly. I started my computer, logged in as usual, and although other programs would start, Explorer would not--correctly, at least. Even opening Task Manager and forcing "Windows Explorer" to restart wouldn't do the trick. I eventually had to use command prompt, performing this:

Code Select Expand

reg delete HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\IrisService /f && shutdown -r -t 0

...which forced a restart, after which I have been able to restart Explorer using Task Manager and get everything back.

Initial research showed that it could have been related to my drive (solid-state, for the record), but this seemed unlikely after I was eventually able to get Explorer to start. At this point, I've just gotten into the habit of sleeping my computer at night, as opposed to shutting it down, while I wait for another update of Windows that may or may not fix whatever problem is causing this. It might not even be related to Windows 11, although the timing sure seems coincidental.



Besides these things, I have been asking myself whether it was worth it. At this point, I probably would turn back the clock and keep Windows 10 for a while. One of the best features, oddly, has been the vastly improved multi-monitor support. I regularly switch between a 32:9 monitor and my laptop monitor; Windows handles these switch-offs much better than before. I often used to lose windows when I switched back to my laptop, having to use a special trick just to move it back into view. This improvement has made life much easier, but at quite a few costs (so far at least).

[Scott5114]

explorer.exe

I never understood why the file explorer, the desktop shell, and the taskbar were all part of the same program.

[jakeroot]

explorer.exe

I never understood why the file explorer, the desktop shell, and the taskbar were all part of the same program.

It doesn't make troubleshooting very easy, that's for sure. The entire taskbar was blank, and I couldn't do much apart from the 'run' command, use task manager, and a few other independent programs.

[achilles765]

I do not need to...nor would I want to....

I am 100% Mac/iPhone/apple exclusive.  My husband has a windows PC and an android phone and I hate them both.  Takes five minutes for his laptop to come on and be ready to use, everything is slow, the sound sucks, stuff crashes all the time....

trying to find something on his phone or to switch apps or something is a hassle.  I hate when I have to use one of his devices.  I cannot imagine Windows 11 would be any better.

I will never again own a computer or a phone that is not an apple device.  They are just too easy to use.  My MacBook takes less than 30 seconds to boot up from a complete restart or power down...my battery lasts 5-7 hours when using things like music and safari...and I can view things from my phone instantly on my laptop...and I know both will last me for years...I had my last iPhone for 6 years. 

I honestly don't understand why more people aren't apple fans...except that all of it is expensive. 

[SectorZ]

My MacBook takes less than 30 seconds to boot up from a complete restart or power down.

My wife's Dell laptop with Windows 10 takes 6 seconds to boot up from no power.

[Scott5114]

I honestly don't understand why more people aren't apple fans...except that all of it is expensive. 

Because Apple has a rigid view of how a computer should be used, and if your use case doesn't match up with what Apple had in mind, you are left to twist in the wind.

Simple example: I got an iPad a few years ago and wanted to set the background to this drawing of a dragon.


Now, obviously, the focal point of the drawing is the table and the dragon's face, so that's what I wanted visible. You would think "vertical image, focal point in top half of image" would be a fairly common use case, considering that describes pretty much any picture of a person taken in portrait orientation. However, iOS had provided no way at all to set which part of the image would be displayed. The one true way of displaying an image to Apple is apparently to fit the drawing to the left and right edges of the screen and then crop the top and bottom off. Which meant I just got the plate, the fork and knife, and the dragon's belly. Kind of not the cute dragon image I was wanting. Also, at the time, there was no means to crop the image using the default software that comes with iOS (I say "at the time" only because Android provides this by default and I would hope Apple's gotten a clue since then). I ended up having to open the image in the image viewer, pan and zoom it to how I wanted, take a screenshot, and then set that as the background–a pretty stupid workaround for Apple deciding they knew best and not providing any other way to do it like a simple "anchor to top" option or even–gasp–letting the user draw a selection box for the region they wanted displayed.

[stormwatch7721]

I finally got windows 11 and it's doing good.

[wanderer2575]

At home, I'm still on Windows 7 and Office 2003.  I'm a happy man.

"Obsolescence" is relative.  If the technology does what you want, and it does so within parameters you deem acceptable, it's not obsolete.  I visit some basic websites (such as this forum), read and send e-mails, work with some basic spreadsheets in Excel, and write lots of basic text presentations in Word.  Rarely (once a year at most) I'll whip up a basic PowerPoint presentation.  My current setup suits me just fine and I'm comfortable with it. 

I realize (boo-hoo) that when my current machine dies I'll have to upgrade both operating system and Office version (I doubt I'll be able to reinstall Office 2003 at this time), but I'm in no hurry for it.

At work, we're still on Windows 10.  And I despise Office 365.

[Scott5114]

"Obsolescence" is relative.  If the technology does what you want, and it does so within parameters you deem acceptable, it's not obsolete.

This is only partly true, at least in regards to operating systems and Web browsers, since those have direct implications on security. Windows is a sieve under the best circumstances, so it's critical to have the most hilarious security bugs fixed before they can be exploited. The longer an OS stays in use past end-of-life, the more likely it is to have an unpatched security hole somewhere in the system.

Application software is less critical to be upgraded, but sometimes it becomes more of a pain to use the old version than to upgrade, especially if you're using it to create files that are shared with others. Even open file formats sometimes change. I've been doing some graphic design work lately, and some puzzling discrepancies have occurred due to him using a version of the program released 4 years ago.

[wanderer2575]

"Obsolescence" is relative.  If the technology does what you want, and it does so within parameters you deem acceptable, it's not obsolete.

This is only partly true, at least in regards to operating systems and Web browsers, since those have direct implications on security. Windows is a sieve under the best circumstances, so it's critical to have the most hilarious security bugs fixed before they can be exploited. The longer an OS stays in use past end-of-life, the more likely it is to have an unpatched security hole somewhere in the system.

Application software is less critical to be upgraded, but sometimes it becomes more of a pain to use the old version than to upgrade, especially if you're using it to create files that are shared with others. Even open file formats sometimes change. I've been doing some graphic design work lately, and some puzzling discrepancies have occurred due to him using a version of the program released 4 years ago.

I don't disagree, but note my original caveat (bolded above).

[bing101]

But isn't the underlying kernel being the base of so many consumer products good enough? Linux is brilliant when it comes to providing something for someone else to fork into something that their users find useful: Android, for instance, or Xbox, or even a refrigerator or washer/dryer. There are very few people that really need Linux (in whatever distro form) as a desktop operating system.

Er...not really. What makes Linux great is that the software is all developed and maintained on a volunteer basis. People write Linux and Linux software because they want to write it. If they're not enjoying themselves, they bow out of development. That means that the developers are proud of their work and aren't cutting corners because they only get paid so much and they just need a quick fix to get their boss off their ass. Software ships when it's ready, not because Marketing promised a big customer we'd have a release by the end of the month, and besides, what are the odds that someone will use that feature with their language set to Norwegian but in the US/Central time zone during Daylight Savings, using a dark mode theme? It's not worth paying someone to spend the time to fix it.

I feel like you've underscored my point rather than rebut it. Open-source development is brilliant for developers, engineers, programmers, and whatnot specifically because of the flexibility in its framework and deployment. It has a great deal of variability in where it can be applied. At least from my point of view, this is why it's such a good base layer for so many other larger projects. But I don't think the standard Linux distro was ever designed for, you know, 80% of end-users who mostly just use their computer for writing stuff, browsing the web, and maybe some photo editing from time to time. For that stuff, Mac and Windows are just better integrated into the rest of our lives, and do most things that most users need to do pretty well. For everyone else, there's Linux.

From personal experience - Linux handles those everyday tasks pretty much as good as Windows. I was pleasantly surprised with that when I installed Ubuntu. I would dare saying certain everyday tasks work even better than under WIndows.
Open source is a interesting concept, not necessarily improving my perception of things.

Same I switched from Windows to initially ChromeOS then to Ubuntu. I agree too with you  on this.

[J N Winkler]

I realize (boo-hoo) that when my current machine dies I'll have to upgrade both operating system and Office version (I doubt I'll be able to reinstall Office 2003 at this time), but I'm in no hurry for it.

I reached the boo-hoo point earlier this year with my old Asus gaming laptop, which was 10 years old and running Windows 7.  I have discovered that Office 2003 will work under Windows 10, to a point, but the plugin that allows 2003 to access XML formats is now very hard to find online.  When I installed it, I also had trouble getting the Office 2003 programs to use it to open XML files when needed--I've managed this for Word, but not for Excel or PowerPoint.  I think there is compatibility troubleshooting I need to do.  (I had to fiddle with compatibility settings to get my now 23-year-old copy of CorelDraw to run scripts properly.)

[vdeane]

I honestly don't understand why more people aren't apple fans...except that all of it is expensive. 

Because Apple has a rigid view of how a computer should be used, and if your use case doesn't match up with what Apple had in mind, you are left to twist in the wind.

Simple example: I got an iPad a few years ago and wanted to set the background to this drawing of a dragon.


Now, obviously, the focal point of the drawing is the table and the dragon's face, so that's what I wanted visible. You would think "vertical image, focal point in top half of image" would be a fairly common use case, considering that describes pretty much any picture of a person taken in portrait orientation. However, iOS had provided no way at all to set which part of the image would be displayed. The one true way of displaying an image to Apple is apparently to fit the drawing to the left and right edges of the screen and then crop the top and bottom off. Which meant I just got the plate, the fork and knife, and the dragon's belly. Kind of not the cute dragon image I was wanting. Also, at the time, there was no means to crop the image using the default software that comes with iOS (I say "at the time" only because Android provides this by default and I would hope Apple's gotten a clue since then). I ended up having to open the image in the image viewer, pan and zoom it to how I wanted, take a screenshot, and then set that as the background–a pretty stupid workaround for Apple deciding they knew best and not providing any other way to do it like a simple "anchor to top" option or even–gasp–letting the user draw a selection box for the region they wanted displayed.

It's especially ridiculous with ports.  Need Ethernet?  You're stuck using a dongle.  Analog headphones?  Dongle for that too.

[Roadgeekteen]

At home, I'm still on Windows 7 and Office 2003.  I'm a happy man.

"Obsolescence" is relative.  If the technology does what you want, and it does so within parameters you deem acceptable, it's not obsolete.  I visit some basic websites (such as this forum), read and send e-mails, work with some basic spreadsheets in Excel, and write lots of basic text presentations in Word.  Rarely (once a year at most) I'll whip up a basic PowerPoint presentation.  My current setup suits me just fine and I'm comfortable with it. 

I realize (boo-hoo) that when my current machine dies I'll have to upgrade both operating system and Office version (I doubt I'll be able to reinstall Office 2003 at this time), but I'm in no hurry for it.

At work, we're still on Windows 10.  And I despise Office 365.

Won't you be at a higher risk for viruses?

[KeithE4Phx]

At home, I'm still on Windows 7 and Office 2003.  I'm a happy man.

"Obsolescence" is relative.  If the technology does what you want, and it does so within parameters you deem acceptable, it's not obsolete.  I visit some basic websites (such as this forum), read and send e-mails, work with some basic spreadsheets in Excel, and write lots of basic text presentations in Word.  Rarely (once a year at most) I'll whip up a basic PowerPoint presentation.  My current setup suits me just fine and I'm comfortable with it. 

Windows 7 is obsolete because it no longer gets security updates.  I believe Win8 has a couple years of life left.  It's not about whether or not it does what you want; it's about security and viruses.

I realize (boo-hoo) that when my current machine dies I'll have to upgrade both operating system and Office version (I doubt I'll be able to reinstall Office 2003 at this time), but I'm in no hurry for it.

You're a candidate for Ubuntu or Mint.  They work just fine on older machines, and LibreOffice will work with Office 2003 files.  The only caveat is other software you might be using.  You'll have to determine if it can be replaced.

At work, we're still on Windows 10.  And I despise Office 365.

Win10 will be supported for many more years.  You're on your own as far as Office 365 goes (I never used it).

[wanderer2575]

At home, I'm still on Windows 7 and Office 2003.  I'm a happy man.

"Obsolescence" is relative.  If the technology does what you want, and it does so within parameters you deem acceptable, it's not obsolete.  I visit some basic websites (such as this forum), read and send e-mails, work with some basic spreadsheets in Excel, and write lots of basic text presentations in Word.  Rarely (once a year at most) I'll whip up a basic PowerPoint presentation.  My current setup suits me just fine and I'm comfortable with it. 

I realize (boo-hoo) that when my current machine dies I'll have to upgrade both operating system and Office version (I doubt I'll be able to reinstall Office 2003 at this time), but I'm in no hurry for it.

At work, we're still on Windows 10.  And I despise Office 365.

Won't you be at a higher risk for viruses?

Possibly, but I'm not online all the time and I don't open attachments that come with e-mails from from Nigerian princes.  With what I do, I'm okay with the risk.

[KeithE4Phx]

I honestly don't understand why more people aren't apple fans...except that all of it is expensive.

Because I own my machine, not crApple.  I don't need to use their software to play MY music on MY computer.  Not only that, but I absolutely despise that @#$& crApple GUI.  To their credit, they do support open source software, and much of the underlying stuff is UNIX-based (One of the BSDs, IIRC).

I have an old (2012) Mac desktop with a MacOS version that can no longer be upgraded, but the hardware works perfectly (Apple's main selling point is their excellent hardware, as far as I'm concerned).  I run Linux Mint inside VirtualBox, and it's now a far better machine than it is when using MacOS directly.  I can run other OSes anytime I want to, including Windows if I ever had the desire (I don't).

[jakeroot]

Possibly, but I'm not online all the time and I don't open attachments that come with e-mails from from Nigerian princes.  With what I do, I'm okay with the risk.

My main problem with this approach is that it relies a bit too much on hope. Using an older OS with less security patches, you have to 'hope' that someone doesn't create a vulnerability for that older OS (especially one still in wider use), and then you have to hope again that a patch for the vulnerability is issued somewhat promptly, which there is no guarantee of.

The more staggering thing to me: Windows 10 was quite well received. Why not upgrade to it?

[jakeroot]

I honestly don't understand why more people aren't apple fans...except that all of it is expensive.

Because I own my machine, not crApple.

If by "own" you mean "have more control", that's only a little true. And perhaps not enough to make a meaningful difference to most people.

I think the bigger issue is just that Apple computers are significantly more expensive than their PC counterparts. That's not as true in the smartphone market, thus Apple maintains a dominant share of the mobile phone market in the US (not so elsewhere). For the average user, Mac computers are great, and work well with their other Apple devices (statistically, a lot of people have at least one Apple device), so it's a logical choice for anyone who isn't into super geeky stuff or gaming. But again: very expensive. More of an investment than I think most people are willing to make.