Microsoft Needs Windows Lite

However, this is not what Microsoft wants or needs. Microsoft is doing just fine by providing businesses what they need: a platform that can be tightly controlled and is easy to administer for large user counts.

Printer administration and Windows printer UX are different too, although the endless-printer-list-oh-god-its-not-even-alphabetical situation is more of an admin oversight to a clunky and low priority situation than anything. Small comfort, no doubt.

That, or your IT team sucks. The problem with Windows being so easy is that any idiot can do it, and they often do.

Microsoft's core product is minimizing operational risk, not the software itself. You can piece together your own stack using best of breed options, but you're going to pay double the price or more, and introduce a ton of friction and risk.

Some businesses (everyone outside of the SV tech echo chamber) "need" Microsoft because its risk mitigation, which is the highest technical feature a business can ask for. Backwards compatibility, EntraID is good, and the compliance/purview stack solves nearly all regulatory headaches OOTB.

OTOH yeah there's a bit of legacy entrenchment, both from Microsoft's monopolistic behavior but also because they were the only ones with an "IT In a box" solution for non-tech companies. Having a cohesive identity, security, and device management ecosystem that can scale to hundreds of thousands of endpoints with a few mouse clicks takes a lot of engineering effort that not many others were doing at the time.

They didn't run Windows because they liked Windows, they ran Windows because it was required by the software they needed to run.

The local car dealership runs factory diagnostic software on Windows.

The two-way radio shop tunes and programs radios using vendor software written for Windows.

Your dentist runs their practice management software runs on Windows, and they Windows software to control other expensive equipment like X-ray machines and 3D scanners.

The fact that consumers use Windows is a nice side effect for keeping mind share and to get people familiar and preferring windows when they enter the workplace. That's it. It's an accidental userbase that exists to be exploited.

Microsoft's money comes from Azure & Office(365). If you're not spending millions on enterprise support/software assurance (or whatever they call it these days) contracts, you pretty much don't exist to them.

How will MS PMs meet their quarterly targets without Windows phoning home every moment someone is using it? \s

Yes you can't get it legally as a regular end user but MSFT also doesn't care about piracy either. They don't lose money on you (they rather keep you as a Windows user than switch to another platform).

Windows 10 IoT Enterprise LTSC 2021 is supported until 2032, Windows 11 IoT Enterprise LTSC 2024 is supported until 2034.

That's why it's not mentioned, it's not a product for "normal users", the audience described in the post.

It's asinine. They could charge $1000+ for LTSC licenses, but my data and digital sovereignty is apparently worth even more to them.

A funny estimate is possible though. MSFT 2750 G$ market cap and 550 M business users. That’s 5 k$ per user. Grossly misrepresenting everything (AI bubble, other cashflows, …) but it is a ‘directionally right’.

1. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/whats-new/windows-...

Specifically, you can buy a single-seat Microsoft 365 E3 subscription directly from Microsoft for $432/year, which includes a license for a single user to use Windows Enterprise, including LTSC, on up to 5 PCs (along with other stuff, mainly Office).

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/enterprise/e3

(click "try for free")

See here (Enterprise and IoT Enterprise LTSB/LTSC editions):

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/release-health/rel...

Technically it can break some apps if they are hard coded to only work with 22H2. Probably happens with some video games and anti cheat software ("always needs the latest update")

There is a Windows 11 LTSC version which works the same.

However I did use windows 10 ltsc for quite a few years until I hit a dll issue with an old game that turned out to be unresolvable as far as I could tell at the time. So much so I switched to pro (I have a work visual studio subscription so I have access to all versions of windows for free). I can't for the life of me remember what dll or what game it was. But I tend to play older games so probably not something many will hit the same problem.

https://en.windowsnoticias.com/Where-to-get-cheap-and-offici...

This whole thing makes sense for indie devs or build VMs but breaks down for Enterprise pretty quick, and Microsoft is much more friendly to Enterprise customers than indie devs.

"OP says Windows needs webdevs to make webpages, but then says Windows Lite internals shouldn't be tightly knit with Internet Explorer, one of the primary means of viewing webpages on windows."

Not quite sure about this. .NET is a superb platform, easy to write reasonably good code, huge standard library, well-maintained, many languages supporting a wide variety of paradigms (C#, VB, F#, PowerShell, C++). .NET is one of Microsoft's success stories.

That said, knowing Microsoft they WOULD release something like this but cripple it by doing something stupid like disallowing the use of virtualization technology, even as an installed package.

I disagree. .NET is fundamental to the Windows platform. It's like having a Python runtime installed by default in some Linux distros, which makes sense for that distribution's use-case.

If the argument is to try to prohibit it, then it just won't work as a platform, because too much existing software won't work on it. There's a lot of garbage I'd love to not have (all the stupid hardware config apps all the manufacturers push on you) but just having that functionality not work can't be the answer.

Similar pet peeve, and I think the solution to this is the platform setting, adopting, and enforcing conventions. Something like what has happened with notebook trackpads[1] about a decade ago, and more recently RGB peripherals[2]—no more cancerous giant Electron app to move a few sliders and set an RGB hex code.

[1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/win32/input-precis...

[2]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/xbox/gdk/docs/features/com...

That will also ship vulnerable drivers.

That's because Windows ships with an ancient .NET 4.8.1 by default. Purely a mistake on Microsoft's part not to bundle modern .NET with their product and force software packaging hell.

Oh hell no. The one big pull keeping people on Windows (and, for similar reasons, Office) is the insane amount of legacy enterprise stuff that depends on it.

WINE and, with it, Valve/Proton have done a lot in that regard, but still, it's by far not enough.

OEM, retail, and consumers are not choosing the best product, they are hindered from having a choice.

> Windows Lite is perfect for gamers and developers.

What? All modern Windows software requires .NET

Sure ads and AI are horrible but they are root of like 5% of the Windows problems.

A good example of a real windows problem is the garbage filesystem performance

tbh the backwards compatibility is not the best and you might have better chance with Wine on Linux but it's still better than MacOS where even software from a couple years ago is unusuable (no 32 bit apps anymore). And will be only worse once Rosetta2 is dropped.

That will never happen. Much as I hate everything being subscription based these days, there is too much effort involved keeping it updated for security changes and dealing with advances in hardware for a cheap lifetime licence to be practical. The best we could hope for from them would be a buy-a-new-one-every-few-years model similar to how Windows and Office used to be sold to no-corp users.

MS would be better off ditching Windows for non-commercial users and concentrating on Azure, Office (pivoting more completely to online versions), SQL Server, and AI services (assuming that bubble doesn't burst too damagingly soon), with a few other things that prop these things up a bit largely by driving people to host them in Azure (VisualStudio & VS Code, DevOps, Exchange, Outlook, Teams, Windows Server for corps who need/want to self-host, Windows Desktop for corps only). Windows desktop for corporate use only makes things a lot easier - they can limit the hardware support needed to a whitelist, and discard a lot of backwards compatibility tech-debt, and so forth.

What would everyone else do? Use Linux or Apple, or one of the BSDs. They can still run VSCode (and maybe VS if that gets ported) to produce things hosted in Azure, they can still use hosted versions of Office/Outlook/Teams or perhaps even VS, so they aren't lost customers for the things that MS actually makes good money from (Windows Desktop has long since stopped being the cash-cow it once was). PC gamers would end up moving to consoles (or console-a-likes from the likes of Steam) including MS's offering if they keep in the games market.

1. NT is a hybrid kernel. Windows runs many drivers in userspace, if not in a limited kernel environment. This includes network drivers and GPU drivers. It can recover from crashes more gracefully than Linux and BSD kernels. Linux has similar drivers for specific use cases like FUSE, however, they are not as performant as NT.

2. NT has always been designed to drive a GUI-driven OS. So it has better default tunings than a vanilla Linux kernel to operate and stay reactive under memory pressure. When your system is under pressure you'd lose mouse movement on Linux, on NT this is rare. It is not impossible to do this under Linux, however, not many companies (except maybe Android manufacturers and Google/ChromeOS) actually invest in this.

3. NT provides a mostly stable API and ABI for drivers. It is not as strong as Win32 guarantees, however it retained mostly the same driver infrastructure since Vista. Many Win7 or Win8 drivers continue to work under Win11.

4. Bundled drivers for consumer systems in NT are often better quality. This could be the side effect of stable ABI. Unlike Linux, significant refactors changing big parts of the driver APIs are rare. I think this reflects in the quality of drivers like USB Host drivers. I deal with embedded Linux systems (x86, RPi), there is always some "rmmod and modprobe to fix USB" script somewhere in a deployed Linux embedded system. I have never seen anything similar in Windows Kiosk setups (TBH I have seen a lot of reinit of COM drivers but it is often manufacturer's faulty implementation).

5. There is simply more money invested to make consumer drivers work on NT. Linux is often an afterthought for many consumer device manufacturers. There is still not enough buy-in. Mainline Linux kernel team, being inferior marketshare-wise, requests more buy-in and more collaboration from device manufacturers. This works for servers since there is pressure from end customers who want to retain UNIX-like environments. Normal consumers cannot exert the same amount of pressure. Microsoft provides subsystems, APIs and ABIs to write the drivers to OEMs, often consulting the first manufacturers of a certain new device type and making compromises for them. Linux on the other hand, requires competitors to collaborate and create the subsystems and APIs. Competitor players themselves have to agree with the developers of their competitors to create a subsystem. On a capitalist economy competitors do not want to collaborate unless it significantly increases market size for everyone. Consumer electronics have very thin margins. They do not scale well with increased effort required by Linux. Only select few big tech or certain old-school consultancies send the significant system patches.

This would not be the case in the hypothetical situation where Windows becomes a Linux distro.

Just look at what happened last week with linux distros needing to update their secure boot keys with a new MS signed certificate. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/expiration-secure-boot-signin...

And look at what MS did with their old version of Office for Mac, where they decided not to simply renew a certificate that would keep the software functioning. https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/microsoft-office/yo...

We already have companies like Nvidia and Broadcom shipping binary blobs to support common hardware. Do we really want a corporation like MS getting in on that kind of thing? If MS wrote some really great desktop linux software, it would be hard for the broader linux community to resist being lured into using MS controlled APIs, and handing over part of their control to Linux's most notable rival.

If I had a quid for every time I saw this comment on HN or Reddit I would probably be as wealthy as Gates himself. It is always an instant downvote for me, because they make me lose faith that people on HN have actually understood what a kernel is and how it works, and what ABI compatibility is, and what user-mode stability is. It is dogmatic and pointless.

The NT kernel is pretty good. Windows is generally well-architected. The NT kernel is the best thing about Windows, and you lot want to swap it out with something decidedly inferior.

Windows' user-mode applications and libraries are also pretty good. By user-mode apps and libraries I mean Win32 itself, WinRT, D2D/DirectWrite, D3D, Winsock, Windows Sound, and the thousands of entrypoints and enums for cool Windows stuff like the registry, synchronisation primitives, file management, special user files, cloud files, accessibility and internationalisation, and more. I've mentioned some other nice platform APIs in a sibling comment.

It is pretty easy to write a full-fledged GUI application on and for Windows that handles heavy use of networking, sound, graphics acceleration, etc without ever having to use a single third-party library, and make it run on OSs that are nearly 18 years old (not the case on most competition OSs).

I also daresay that IE/Edge moving to Chromium was in some ways a bad idea, as Chromium has become the de facto default Web platform, and any non-Chromium browser (Safari, Firefox) is likewise de facto non-conforming.

Two things I can think off off the top of my head that do completely suck about Windows: the forced updates and forced antivirus (e.g. Defender). None of those depend on the kernel, and Windows userland running on top of Linux wouldn't inherently make those two things suck less.

     r/WindowsLTSC/wiki

The harsh truth is that most consumers pick Windows because PCs cost less than Macs. Businesses pick them for employee computers for the same reason.

And Windows Server more or less became a moot point when the cloud took over. They don’t want you hosting your own Exchange server anymore, they want you in Office 365. And they’ll just as happily sell you Linux compute instances on Azure because lower COGS means more profit.

Ever since the MacBook Neo, that's no longer the case. And frankly... Apple has now demonstrated that an old iPhone SoC is enough to drive macOS. I think that it should be feasible for them to run macOS on iDevices as a hypervisor-style guest, yielding you the full macOS experience when plugged into an USB-C dock.