News Only 40 Percent of Windows Users Know Windows 11 Exists

[Admin]

Only 40% of Windows users know the existence of Windows 11, and even less know if they will upgrade to it.

Only 40 Percent of Windows Users Know Windows 11 Exists : Read more

 

[mitch074]

What does Windows 11 really bring to the table?

• Reduced hardware support (no CPU older than Core 8th gen or Zen+)
• no 32-bit version
• much larger storage and RAM requirement
• a slightly revamped interface that you could emulate with a plugin
• Direct Storage is actually ported back to Windows 10...

As for Android apps compatibility, you could do it on Windows 10 too with a pluggable subsystem - I wonder how long it'll take for Oracle to attack Microsoft for again bundling a Java-compatible environment with Windows - last time they did that with WinXP, they got hit with a BAD lawuit by Sun Microsystem... that Microsoft lost.

 

[MMorris666]

auto hdr

 

[hotaru.hino]

Because not a lot of people care about technology enough to go "ooh, new OS."

I'm pretty sure a majority of iDevice users don't even know iOS 15 is a thing yet.

 

[Giroro]

Maybe they saw the Win11 interface and thought it was fake or a joke.

Does somebody really need to sit down with Microsoft and explain to them the obvious practical reasoning behind putting the start button is in the corner?
(You can get the mouse to the corner with one swipe of the mouse, from anywhere on the screen, without finding the cursor or even looking. When the start button is off center you have to find the cursor, swipe it down, find it again when it disappears off the bottom of the screen, then align it horizontally - or follow it with your eyes while moving it more slowly into the right place). It takes a 0.3 second action and makes it take 3-5x longer.

Its just so much harder and slower to do not just that one very common action, but that awful "make it objectively worse for no real reason" design attitude has been applied to every part of the GUI. Less information. More clicks. Its the Windows 8 problem all over again. "If it ain't broke, change everything".

The familiar efficient GUI was Microsoft's last competitive edge in an era of declining software support; All their biggest hardware partners are putting out machines with either terrible build quality, or horribly overpriced. So why would anybody stick with Microsoft over cheaper chromebooks or "it just works" Macs?

 

[Jake Hall]

I have a feeling that 11 is gonna repeat WVista and W8 mistakes.

 

[Eximo]

I don't think they could equal Windows 8 as a failure. Still one of my favorite videos where a guy sits his father down in front of it and he closes the start menu, he couldn't get back to it after many minutes of trying. At work I had to write a whole how to guide for testers (we ended up waiting for 8.1)

Those odd choices are continuing today, but most people don't use the features they are changing. Not looking forward to a dumbed down system menu that actually seems less touch friendly then the old stuff. They are replacing a lot of icons with straight text links, no idea how they consider that better. (That might be the only thing Windows 11 has going for it, a more unified look in the menus)

Think I am going to switch my HTPC to Linux, and put 11 on the gaming box. Basically just use it for games and the occasional use of Office 365 so shouldn't be too big a deal. I messed with Linux the other day for gaming, I could probably get used to it, but don't see the need.

 

[DoctorPaul]

Only 40% of Windows users know the existence of Windows 11, and even less know if they will upgrade to it.

Only 40 Percent of Windows Users Know Windows 11 Exists : Read more

Does software really exist? How much does it weigh? Does unreleased software exist, and if so, how would would we really know? Will Window 11 be an upgrade, or just an incremental version number? Is all software with a larger version number an upgrade?

 

[logainofhades]

Because almost nobody really cares about their OS. All they care about is the system does what they want it to do.

 

[DoctorPaul]

Because almost nobody really cares about their OS. All they care about is the system does what they want it to do.

And doesn’t do what they don’t want it to do. I remember when I couldn’t use Windows 3.1 more than a couple of hours before it crashed. Back then, real programmers used Unix, because Linux hadn’t been invented yet. Windows that is less vulnerable to malware would definitely be nice. Not really sure the TPM 2.0 bar is high enough, but it seems like a start. Windows 10 since v.2004 is now usable with WSL2 booting a Linux kernel side-by-side with the Windows kernel.

 

[USAFRet]

Because almost nobody really cares about their OS. All they care about is the system does what they want it to do.

Yep.
I've said exactly that, multiple times.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Windows that is less vulnerable to malware would definitely be nice

I would argue that modern OSes, including Windows, are fairly immune to malware as long as it's not executed. And if it is executed, it typically requires admin privileges to do a lot of damage if it doesn't exploit an unpatched vulnerability first. Otherwise the most damage it can do is to whatever the user has access to (which to be fair, is still a lot).

A vast majority of why malware can do its job is because the users don't make sure what they're running can be trusted.

 

[USAFRet]

I would argue that modern OSes, including Windows, are fairly immune to malware as long as it's not executed. And if it is executed, it typically requires admin privileges to do a lot of damage if it doesn't exploit an unpatched vulnerability first. Otherwise the most damage it can do is to whatever the user has access to (which to be fair, is still a lot).

A vast majority of why malware can do its job is because the users don't make sure what they're running can be trusted.

Absolutely.

Most of it is user induced.

Either downloading something they shouldn't, or turning off Updates...or more likely, both.

 

[epobirs]

Maybe they saw the Win11 interface and thought it was fake or a joke.

Does somebody really need to sit down with Microsoft and explain to them the obvious practical reasoning behind putting the start button is in the corner?
(You can get the mouse to the corner with one swipe of the mouse, from anywhere on the screen, without finding the cursor or even looking. When the start button is off center you have to find the cursor, swipe it down, find it again when it disappears off the bottom of the screen, then align it horizontally - or follow it with your eyes while moving it more slowly into the right place). It takes a 0.3 second action and makes it take 3-5x longer.

Its just so much harder and slower to do not just that one very common action, but that awful "make it objectively worse for no real reason" design attitude has been applied to every part of the GUI. Less information. More clicks. Its the Windows 8 problem all over again. "If it ain't broke, change everything".

The familiar efficient GUI was Microsoft's last competitive edge in an era of declining software support; All their biggest hardware partners are putting out machines with either terrible build quality, or horribly overpriced. So why would anybody stick with Microsoft over cheaper chromebooks or "it just works" Macs?

There's a simple reason for taking the start menu out of the corner: touchscreens. Especially newer generations with much smaller bezels. Having a major UI element in a location where it is likely to get accidentally activated is a non-trivial problem. Meanwhile, it takes a single Setting entry to revert back to the left aligned task bar instead of centered. The centering is something that should have been done far earlier and today the real issue is which should be the default.

Personally, I'd prefer it to be one of those context sensitive items. If you have a physical keyboard connected and thus a Windows key that acts as a start menu hotkey, it doesn't matter much if the task bar is centered or left aligned. I'm more likely to use the hotkey. If a physical keyboard isn't connected, I'm fairly likely to be using the machine in tablet mode and the centered taskbar is preferred.

 

[hotaru251]

What does Windows 11 really bring to the table?

• Reduced hardware support (no CPU older than Core 8th gen or Zen+)
• no 32-bit version
• much larger storage and RAM requirement
• a slightly revamped interface that you could emulate with a plugin
• Direct Storage is actually ported back to Windows 10...

As for Android apps compatibility, you could do it on Windows 10 too with a pluggable subsystem - I wonder how long it'll take for Oracle to attack Microsoft for again bundling a Java-compatible environment with Windows - last time they did that with WinXP, they got hit with a BAD lawuit by Sun Microsystem... that Microsoft lost.

cons for sure, but also benefits.
such as speed improvements for system, ability play apps on pc natively (niche but some will enjoy it), they have said directstorage WILL work better on WIN11 than WIN10, not having bloatware (they've said a lot of stuff wont download unless u specifically open it), and more.

yes its nto a big difference, but they are there.

 

[mitch074]

cons for sure, but also benefits.
such as speed improvements for system, ability play apps on pc natively (niche but some will enjoy it), they have said directstorage WILL work better on WIN11 than WIN10, not having bloatware (they've said a lot of stuff wont download unless u specifically open it), and more.

yes its nto a big difference, but they are there.

"Speed improvements" for system : yeah, they claim that for every new version of Windows. Most of the times, it's true only in specific cases.
Direct Storage working better on Win11 : inasmuch as the OS's integrated apps and UI will make use of them. Remove/disable these, difference becomes negligible.
Removing bloatware : that's where O&O ShutUp10 and O&O AppBuster (and equivalent) come in - I did that yesterday on a Win10 VM, it scrapped 1.2Gb of RAM (from 2.6 yo 1.4 Gb of used RAM at boot). In short they COULD do that on Win10 easily, but we instead need to scrap perfectly functional hardware to accommodate Win11's needs.
I don't overly care, I'll simply stay on Linux, but there's a bunch of reasonably performing machines I need to take care of at work that will need a new CPU at least in 2024. And that pisses me off.

 

[Eximo]

Personally, I'd prefer it to be one of those context sensitive items. If you have a physical keyboard connected and thus a Windows key that acts as a start menu hotkey, it doesn't matter much if the task bar is centered or left aligned. I'm more likely to use the hotkey. If a physical keyboard isn't connected, I'm fairly likely to be using the machine in tablet mode and the centered taskbar is preferred.

Yeah, just like Windows telling you to contact your administrator when not on a domain, or trying to reach internet resources when disconnected. They suck at context driven programming.