I disagree. If there is a fundamental architectural issue with the current platform that is getting in the way of progress, the right thing to do is to fix it.
By ‘progress’ I mean compatibility with new innovations like DirectX or some new instruction set that enable dumb things like transparency, or spacial audio, as well genuinely useful things.
You simply can’t bolt that onto an 18 year old system without breaking things irreversibly.
It also means depreciation of insecure ways of doing things. MS’ attempt to get TPMs into every desktop is clumsy, but it serves a greater good.
None of those things require W11 to operate, but I can see why they needed to make it look fancier than W10 to convince people that it’s somehow ‘better’.
> None of those things require W11 to operate, but I can see why they needed to make it look fancier than W10 to convince people that it’s somehow ‘better’.
It has the opposite effect. People do not like the fancier look.
It also depends on what you mean by progress. if it is genuinely better for customers why do you have to force them to use it?
By ‘progress’ I mean compatibility with new innovations like DirectX or some new instruction set that enable dumb things like transparency, or spacial audio, as well genuinely useful things.
You simply can’t bolt that onto an 18 year old system without breaking things irreversibly.
It also means depreciation of insecure ways of doing things. MS’ attempt to get TPMs into every desktop is clumsy, but it serves a greater good.
None of those things require W11 to operate, but I can see why they needed to make it look fancier than W10 to convince people that it’s somehow ‘better’.