Windows 11 - lightweight? fast? and Android?
Discussion
paulrockliffe said:
RVB said:
zippy3x said:
...All my main 5 or 6 apps are pinned to the task bar...
Same here.Currently I have 17 apps pinned on the task bar and my internet browser has 22 'favourites' with abbreviated names (to save space) on the favourites bar.
Any of 17 apps and 22 websites are available with just one click on my screen.
Edited by RVB on Tuesday 19th April 17:14
I've been waiting for a new touchscreen to arrive for a car project, it came yesterday and I discovered that Android Auto won't support it's resolution and that the one I thought was broken was suffering from a faulty USB cable so that can go in the car now its touch panel is working.
I've added this 9" screen to my desktop setup as it makes a neat music player with the touchscreen, maybe I should make my own Start Menu as an application and simply put it on that screen.
It takes up no extra space at the bottom of the screen because the taskbar is already there, and it takes up 0.5" near the top of the page having web favourites under the web address box. I've lost a few percent of the screen to gain lots of quick access which is a very worthwhile trade-off for me.
As for stuff not used 90% of the time, that's not at all true in my case. Most of the apps and web pages are used most days and some are used many times in a day.
My computer is a very busy one and in its lifetime it has clocked-up about 100000 hours (100000 mile club!). Yes, it's old and isn't supposed to have W11 but it's reliable and a bypassed W11 works fine, especially now some of the earlier W11 bugs and annoyances have been fixed.
paulrockliffe said:
Same, but what tipped me away from pinning to the Taskbar ultimately was using Virtual Desktops and setting those to only show app windows that are open on that screen and on that desktop. So much simpler to find all the open apps across multiple projects without the same pinned apps alongside each list.
It's a shame Microsoft aren't bothered the same way.
I wanted to like virtual desktops but I just can't get away with how their own apps react. Say for example I've opened PowerPoint on a second desktop. My email and teams is on the first. If someone then sends me a PowerPoint file by email, it opens on the second desktop despite being opened from desktop 1. It's infuriating and has made me give up using it.It's a shame Microsoft aren't bothered the same way.
Hopefully nobody installed WSA using this now removed script: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/win...
TameRacingDriver said:
I wanted to like virtual desktops but I just can't get away with how their own apps react. Say for example I've opened PowerPoint on a second desktop. My email and teams is on the first. If someone then sends me a PowerPoint file by email, it opens on the second desktop despite being opened from desktop 1. It's infuriating and has made me give up using it.
Yep. it always opens new instances of apps from the Desktop that the first instance was opened on. WTF. I can sort of tolerate it because it's dead easy to move stuff around with the shortcut keys, but still.They need to employ a few people whose job it is to read forums and then go and punch the right person in the face.
They've got 90% of a good system, but they always seem to fail on the last 10%, which makes all the difference.
At least in W11 they've fixed the issue with it that really did make it unuseable - disconnect a monitor - say you're using a KVM switch to swap between home and work - and it would slam everything on to the Main screen. Sometimes from every desktop, sometimes not. And it's much better at putting things back where they were if you restart, almost good in fact.
How hard would it be to add a Save button to your Desktop and fix that issue you mention? Harder or easier than f
king about with the Start Menu? Again?Agree with the 90% there comment, which makes it all the more frustrating. Apple, like or loathe them, do generally seem to actually make things work well, even if there are less features - though they are no strangers to illogical bits of design either.
It'll be interesting to see how Win11 works when we finally get it at work, though that might not be for anything between 6 and 18 months I reckon. Certain bits of it are definitely an improvement over Win10, but it does look unfinished.
It'll be interesting to see how Win11 works when we finally get it at work, though that might not be for anything between 6 and 18 months I reckon. Certain bits of it are definitely an improvement over Win10, but it does look unfinished.
eeLee said:
Hopefully nobody installed WSA using this now removed script: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/win...
Microsoft have in their own way caused this problem by not making Android support available across the globe.The biggest thing Microsoft have failed to understand is that I don't give a st about the OS - I just need it to be stable, secure and do the thing I actually need it to do which is to run apps. Anything else is utterly irrelevant to be honest.
I'll stick with W10 until the very last second possible - it does what I need.
t about the OS - I just need it to be stable, secure and do the thing I actually need it to do which is to run apps. Anything else is utterly irrelevant to be honest.I'll stick with W10 until the very last second possible - it does what I need.
xeny said:
Oakey said:
TechRadar had a guide to edit the registry but went in to say you may not got future security updates, is that the case?
MS suggest at some point you may stop getting updates but who knows if or when?Mr Whippy said:
I don’t get the need for TPM without bitlocker, and for most people with non-pro it leaves TPM being superfluous.
Are MS intending to release bitlocker for all versions?
Doesn't Home support "Device Encryption" or something similarly named? Presumably that wants the TPM.Are MS intending to release bitlocker for all versions?
xeny said:
Brainpox said:
MS won't pull security updates, they can't be seen to be intentionally leaving users at risk.
Using that reasoning, they'd never stop support for 10 as that will orphan a huge amount of hardware.Brainpox said:
That's a bit different. You were suggesting they would stop updates to some Win11 users based on their hardware. Once Win10 support ends no one will get updates no matter what hardware or license they have.
Given those people have had to use various unsupported registry or installer tweaks to get the OS installed at all, and it explicitly warns about posssibly not getting updates, I think they won’t feel too much concern if the decide to pull the patch plug on those machines. Time will presumably tell.deckster said:
Funk said:
I don't give a st about the OS
<...>
I'll stick with W10 until the very last second possible
Does not compute.t about the OS<...>
I'll stick with W10 until the very last second possible
The amount of time spent interacting at the OS layer is minimal - I just need it to run applications without s
tting the bed. Since Microsoft fired most of their testing and QA folks a few years back, updates become a gamble as to what they'll break this time. A couple of good examples off the top of my head how updates made W10 worse:1) Arbitrarily remove the shortcut to Control Panel from the Start Button context menu. Why?
2) Removed the ability to defer updates - why can't I choose to hang back and let some other poor f
kers be MS' guinea pigs?There's nothing I do in W10 that I didn't do in Windows 7 - there's nothing more I'd do in W11 than I do in W10. In fact I seem to recall that W10 was to be 'the last OS' - that aged poorly. As others have noted, they've not even bothered doing either W10 or W11 properly as some of the things you occasionally need aren't actually accessible via the new Settings menu; you have to dig into the old-style Control Panel.
By all means I'm happy for MS to do security updates but I don't need 'feature downloads' that break things or the arbitrary removal of things that have been perfectly functional for years.
Edited by Funk on Sunday 8th May 22:04
Brainpox said:
That's a bit different. You were suggesting they would stop updates to some Win11 users based on their hardware. Once Win10 support ends no one will get updates no matter what hardware or license they have.
Given that installing it on unsupported hardware results in a message saying in essence "at some point in the future you may not get updates" am I doing anything beyond observing what the MS themselves are saying? We'll have to wait and see unless you are Satya Nadella?Funk said:
Simple; I don't need 'x' or 'y' **NEW FEATURES**. I don't need stuff moving around or permissions/rights to do things being changed or removed on a whim.
The amount of time spent interacting at the OS layer is minimal - I just need it to run applications without stting the bed. Since Microsoft fired most of their testing and QA folks a few years back, updates become a gamble as to what they'll break this time. A couple of good examples off the top of my head how updates made W10 worse:
1) Arbitrarily remove the shortcut to Control Panel from the Start Button context menu. Why?
2) Removed the ability to defer updates - why can't I choose to hang back and let some other poor fkers be MS' guinea pigs?
There's nothing I do in W10 that I didn't do in Windows 7 - there's nothing more I'd do in W11 than I do in W10. In fact I seem to recall that W10 was to be 'the last OS' - that aged poorly. As others have noted, they've not even bothered doing either W10 or W11 properly as some of the things you occasionally need aren't actually accessible via the new Settings menu; you have to dig into the old-style Control Panel.
By all means I'm happy for MS to do security updates but I don't need 'feature downloads' that break things or the arbitrary removal of things that have been perfectly functional for years.
I only just upgraded my last Win7 pro retail to a Win10 pro retail (I have 3 copies).The amount of time spent interacting at the OS layer is minimal - I just need it to run applications without s
tting the bed. Since Microsoft fired most of their testing and QA folks a few years back, updates become a gamble as to what they'll break this time. A couple of good examples off the top of my head how updates made W10 worse:1) Arbitrarily remove the shortcut to Control Panel from the Start Button context menu. Why?
2) Removed the ability to defer updates - why can't I choose to hang back and let some other poor f
kers be MS' guinea pigs?There's nothing I do in W10 that I didn't do in Windows 7 - there's nothing more I'd do in W11 than I do in W10. In fact I seem to recall that W10 was to be 'the last OS' - that aged poorly. As others have noted, they've not even bothered doing either W10 or W11 properly as some of the things you occasionally need aren't actually accessible via the new Settings menu; you have to dig into the old-style Control Panel.
By all means I'm happy for MS to do security updates but I don't need 'feature downloads' that break things or the arbitrary removal of things that have been perfectly functional for years.
Edited by Funk on Sunday 8th May 22:04
I kept Win7 going without issue for a long time. Almost all it’s vulnerabilities were because of stupid MS attack surface expansion like default on/open firewall ports for early versions of SMB.
How hard to just turn this on IF you needed smb 1.1 (or whatever it was) shares?
And as you say control panel stuff strewn around across multiple interfaces.
Win11 was the last thing Win10 needed.
They needed to finish 10 Ui migration.
They just have designers tinkering with UI details and pontificating all day.
It’s how I’d operate if it was a personal project.
It doesn’t feel like a pro project.
The whole ‘constantly updated for free’ thing is b
ks… it just means a perpetual excuse for shoddy software as it can be updated/fixed later… so zero testing/thought is used.My gripe is the user system.
I have a non MS account for login.
A different one for legacy Hotmail.
A different one for buying stuff (credit card only linked, no email, no logins to systems etc)
A different one for Xbox live.
Win10 struggles to accept you might want to segregate your activity like that.
Yet more reason it’s a big piece of rubbish.
Attack surface is so big now, it extends out into your banking, emails, remote logging in, mobile phones possibly. Not great.
And the firewall is essentially a big obfuscated chocolate fireguard that can’t be managed sensibly with app store installs.
But with a well setup WFC you can essentially turn on/off updates, other features, and really control what the software is doing.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff