MS used to have uservoice pages. They ignored issues, no matter how highly-voted they were. I once asked someone at MS about this, and they said they take their cues from other sources, like what industry partners ask them to fix at conferences.
What a waste of time to have uservoice pages, induce people to post/vote on them, and then just ignore them. I guess it's for the best that they nuked them. They were replaced with pages that said "tweet us". Maybe they have something more robust now, especially since twitter is politically charged/divisive.
The point isn't to resolve user problems, it's to reduce the number of people taking up the time of support agents. Letting people vent in a pseudo-official channel accomplishes that. Whenever something gets resolved that was being fixed anyway, because the "industry partners", enterprise and high level customers wanted it, they can mark an issue as resolved, and generate the appearance of responsive service.
It's like standing up complex automated phone menus, you're going to frustrate a certain number of callers into giving up, and reduce the overall number of customers you have to interact with.
We need a scale reform for modern businesses - platforms and companies like Microsoft are logistically incapable of providing good service to their customers, or moderating hundreds of millions or even billions of users, effectively separating these companies from all the harm they cause.
If you can't responsibly operate a business past a certain scale, you shouldn't be allowed to continue growth. I don't know what that looks like, legally speaking, but it's necessary, for what should be reasons obvious to everyone.
> If you can't responsibly operate a business past a certain scale, you shouldn't be allowed to continue growth. I don't know what that looks like, legally speaking
A legal solution is not the correct solution to that problem. The classic answer to this question in Western societies is that the market will produce a better alternative.
For what it's worth, I'm typing this on my Debian desktop. In my opinion, a far better solution.
The market has failed. It's allowed massive monopolistic and anti-competitive scenarios to play out, and technology outran legislation like crazy. There are billions of people who are a victim of the failure mode I pointed out. You using an alternative (and being here, on this forum) singles you out as one of one in tens of millions of people with the capacity and knowledge to accomplish that.
25 years ago it made sense to let things play out. Now we're looking at ownership by subscription, and people unable to actually own their own devices, with constant, ubiquitous, global surveillance for all but the most wealthy, and even them most of the time. We see a proliferation of some of the worst possible things online, and companies that are unable and unwilling to effectively moderate their billions of users with resorting to heavy handed authoritarian tactics. Tactics which, when recognized by those in power, are quickly taken over and utilized for purposes far beyond anything so prosaic as "protecting children" or "combating terrorism."
Apple and Microsoft and Google and the rest have shown us that the tech market is more or less just like the old steel and oil markets - robber barons rush in, coordinate, distill the market to a handful of effective players, capture regulation and lobby legislation to maximize their own profit, and there is no concomitant return of value to the users or the market in general.
If you're too big to run the business responsibly, you should be legally prohibited from expanding further. This is about as pro-market as you can get, it requires actual unmet needs in any market to be met, and holds those operating in the market to account for their behavior.
You're going to need some actual citations for that narrative before anyone buys into it.
The US refused serious regulation out of fear of stifling a fully-financialized economy. Now that America has no manufacturing capacity and a weak grasp on raw materials, our only lucrative businesses embrace exploitative subscription services, lock-in and planned obsolescence. Every economist in the US could have surmised that this would be an issue following the aforementioned oil/steel rackets. It just switched from the secondary sector to the tertiary sector of the economy.
This is a meme that doesn't have any bearing in reality. The U.S. remains the world's second-largest manufacturer behind China, with real output reaching an all-time high of $2.5 trillion in 2021. Manufacturing's contribution to U.S. GDP in 2023 was approximately 10.2%, or $2.3 trillion.
The reason the meme persists, I think, is that fewer and fewer folks work in manufacturing, due to a massive increase in automation. In essence, the U.S. didn't offshore manufacturing as much as they automated it. So it seems to have disappeared from an employment perspective, even though in continues to drive the economy.
Automation has significantly boosted productivity and efficiency, enabling higher output, but it has also contributed to the long-term decline in manufacturing employment.
The notion that the U.S. subsists on "exploitative subscription services, lock-in and planned obsolescence" is, while part of the everyday consumer experience, not a good reflection of what is really driving the economy.
I think you might have a slightly off-kilter view of what I mean. Regulation is not inherently good. Large corporations will often work through lobbyists (I don’t think anyone can deny the incredible access powerful lobbyists have in the US) to enact laws purely to stifle competition. An example of this is major groups like Meta directly requesting regulations on major topics, because when a law is in place, you know exactly how to skirt around it and you find all the loopholes you can.
> The market has failed. It's allowed massive monopolistic and anti-competitive scenarios to play out, and technology outran legislation like crazy.
Why is that the market's fault? That's like blaming a river for flowing downhill. The most stable configuration in a free market is a monopoly. Obviously everything eventually ends up as one without intervention. It's a mathematical certainty.
This is 100% on regulators allowing that to happen.
I agree, and now that we have an existence proof for the exact way things have gone wrong, we can see that these companies are exploiting numbers of customers and consumers far greater than they can responsibly handle. We need to legislate what responsible means, in this context, and apply reasonable boundaries and limits on scale. A single company that leaks nearly every person's private information online should be held to account for irresponsible practices, having damaged the entire world, but despite this happening multiple times, they hardly even get a slap on the wrist.
The status quo is untenable. We need better regulations that accommodate reality, and leave regulators no choice but to hold companies and people to account for the harms they do.
> The most stable configuration in a free market is a monopoly.
Free market doesn't mean unregulated. It means that the market reflects the true costs so market participants have free choice. When you have a monopoly, the market is probably not free anymore.
So you argue that the capitalist approach failed, and now you advocate for a socialist approach?
Maybe the market didn't fail. Maybe the market is providing what the consumers demand. Maybe you are an outlier, different from the rest of the consumers.
Do you feel that there is no option for you on the market? Windows, nor Debian, nor Ubuntu, not Mac meet your needs? Do you think that there are others like you, if so then why not start a business and serve that market? You might have tremendous opportunity here.
There's another post on hn about how 19% of california homes are owned by investors, and when I saw that I thought to myself "wow, the free market really produced an optimal outcome there."
In a truly free market even in California real estate would be pretty affordable. It's not affordable because there's so many laws that have been passed by people who are trying to protect the culture and value of their area.
Like San Francisco, it's nearly impossible to build anything there.
That’s a non-answer. The market very obviously did not produce a better alternative, and we’ve been playing this game for enough decades now to be reasonably confident it won’t—and if it will, Microsoft or some other megacorp will buy them, gut them, and carry on.
Regulation is the proper tool to force corporations to behave in a way that isn’t as harmful to society. This is something that should be regulated.
> For what it's worth, I'm typing this on my Debian desktop. In my opinion, a far better solution.
It’s almost comical how you speak about better alternatives in the context of capitalist markets, where better means reaching a higher market saturation, and then offer a niche solution that has a number of users so tiny that it’s less than a rounding error in any statistic.
You conveniently left out in the context of capitalist markets in your quote. The grandparent argued that legal solutions couldn't solve the problem, but the market could by producing a better solution. If that better solution doesn't displace the incumbent, it is by definition not a better solution, because that would—in the context of this question—imply displacing it, hence the market would have solved the problem.
So whether Debian is addressing your needs better than Windows bears little relevance for the topic at hand.
I quoted as much as I thought necessary to make clear which part of your comment I am referring to.
In any case, I think that the term "better" applies for each consumer, therefore the better solution for any specific consumer does not necessarily have to displace the incumbent.
> they just never let down a rope to the consumer market
So this is a coded statement that I fear most people won't get, but it's pretty profound.
If I'm getting bigyabai's point, they are saying that people that are professionals at choosing operating systems have overwhelmingly chosen Linux, and it's really in the consumer markets, where folks don't have any special knowledge or judgment, that Windows and MacOS thrive. That's a good insight, because it's completely true. Both Windows and MacOS cater to audiences that, for the most part, don't care or want to care about how technology works, and this makes them vulnerable. Apple and Microsoft capitalize on this.
Your answer, and GP's reference to Debian, is highlighting the misunderstanding very precisely: Microsoft is not just an operating system vendor. If they stopped making Windows tomorrow, Microsoft would still exist and do well economically, because it's a hydra with a thousand heads.
Hence my point: The classical concept of "displacement" doesn't apply to corporations at that scale anymore.
Indeed it did. Thirty years ago, when the world wasn't utterly dominated by giant tech companies like it is now. Back then Microsoft wasn't capable of buying a country if they so desired; they couldn't hold most world governments hostage, didn't have a product portfolio that covers almost any organisation globally, and didn't have a trove of petabytes (more?) of data to train artificial intelligence with.
The world is a different place now, and old rules don't apply anymore.
I actually think Microsoft was much more dominant in the 90s. There really weren't solid alternatives to Windows and that was their Cash cow. Now there's tons of alternatives to virtually everything they do
I think he's referring to the fact that, while everyone jokes about "year of Linux on the desktop":
In the last 30 years, we moved overwhelmingly from local workloads to internet workloads
We moved overwhelmingly away from desktop and to mobile
Android is the dominant mobile OS, and it's hand-in-hand with Linux at the kernel level
The internet, meanwhile, is powered overwhelmingly by Linux
So I tend to agree that just because normal folks think of "computing" as the Windows or Mac machine sitting in front of them, the world is now predominantly powered by Linux.
The distinction is relevant here, because "year of Linux on the desktop" doesn't refer to Android. The philosophy of "Linux" is that the user has control. That applies more to BSD than Android. Also it's "on the desktop".
Oh sorry is it correct that you meant, that the "year of Linux on the desktop" doesn't matter anymore, because computing switched to mobile and servers and there the Linux kernel is dominating, while I understood that you mean that Android counts toward the "year of Linux on the desktop"?
> We need a scale reform for modern businesses - platforms and companies like Microsoft are logistically incapable of providing good service to their customers, or moderating hundreds of millions or even billions of users, effectively separating these companies from all the harm they cause.
And here is where "you have to spend X number of days a year doing CS" should be a requirement for every engineer, dev, product manger, and executive.
I do not think you understand the level of abject stupidity that customers are capable of. I do not think you understand how likely customers are to do dumb things and blame the company.
Companies who provide support charge more for their products to pay for it. How much? Well how many people break things and then ask for refunds. The company pays for those people by marking up all the other products.
IN any organization: first friend outside your team should be in accounting. The second should be in customer service. These are the most valuable resources you will have regarding the tempo of what is going on inside your organization. They are the front line and the oracles of "truth" (the books dont lie, unless your Enron' and then you have bigger problems).
I worked phone support for a while... I had a customer call about backing up their research paper they were working on (iomega, zip drive). After going back and forth for 20m or so, since the drive light wasn't on...
Me: "Would you be able to pull the computer out into the light so that you can check the connection with better lighting instead of the flashlight?"
Customer: "Not really, the power is out."
I worked on the iomega side, second level support, mostly Jazz and OS/2 calls, knew it was going to be a doozy when I got a non-warm zip customer. MCI operated support call center in Chandler, AZ... pretty sure that's where Safelight Auto Glass operates now.
Related: A buddy on the Compaq side of the call center got the infamous "broken cup holder" call. He could barely contain the laughter and popped up having to tell anyone at that moment about it.
> The point isn't to resolve user problems, it's to reduce the number of people taking up the time of support agents. Letting people vent in a pseudo-official channel accomplishes that. Whenever something gets resolved that was being fixed anyway, because the "industry partners", enterprise and high level customers wanted it, they can mark an issue as resolved, and generate the appearance of responsive service.
Yep. It's like Whitehouse "petitions". Time-wasting tarpits for the unaware.
> It's like standing up complex automated phone menus, you're going to frustrate a certain number of callers into giving up, and reduce the overall number of customers you have to interact with.
The point of pointless troubleshooting procedures, long forms, long wait times, denials, and inconvenience is to monetize misery and create a maximally-negative conversion funnel. Ask any UnitedHealth or airline CEO.
The market has solutions to this, but they are mostly for businesses. E.g. You can purchase "support" either from Microsoft, or other third parties that will then deal with MS for you if they can't fix it themselves. And whatever software you buy also has it's own support terms too. (I've had good experiences with paid AWS support under both models.)
On the flip side: if you're an individual, you're at a poker table with a $50 chip—you don't have leverage—you either just take the bet or don't. So you're basically forced to research the laptop/hardware/software you intend to run to verify it's a happy path, or it at least has vendors (or a local PC store) that will help you if something breaks, and hope for the best.
So I guess the question is, would people be willing to pay for good support? Would people even pay for an OS anymore?
> So I guess the question is, would people be willing to pay for good support?
They're already doing so, just not receiving it. Microsoft made a yearly profit of 101 billion dollars, or better phrased, 101,000 million dollars. The solution isn't "the consumer pays more", it's "investors earn less".
I wonder if they will purposely train/instruct chatbot help agents to be a bit less helpful, to mimic the friction and frustration that phone trees and such create.
Or perhaps they'll train them to be cheerfully helpful, but to just dump all the feedback in a virtual circular file. If so, would the chatbot admit this is what happens if the user asked them?
At Microsoft scale, common market rules no longer apply. What would you even call their "product" that someone could improve upon? It’s a giant maze of offerings, competing interests, corporate and government relations, revenue streams… hoping for someone to disrupt this due to better support is like hoping for a country to displace the United States for their superior social systems. It’s nonsensical, that’s not how global mega-corporations work.
Well... being lucky enough to negotiate a fairly liberal licensing agreement with a tech juggernaut as MS did with IBM for something as critical as the OS? Not likely.
AMD has been making chips literally for decades with investments in Billions. They had to spin their fab business off it was too expensive to keep up with. And even now, it's taken nearly a decade of competitive and leading products to make inroads, and even then they're still under 50% of x86 computers in use.
Linux has been around over 30 years, and is just now cracking 5% desktop market share. This happens while Windows has become less than 10% of Microsoft revenue, with well over a decade of "free" upgrades.
So, yeah, if you're able to get a company started... get billions invested... able to create compelling products without triggering literal mine-fields of IP and legislative restrictions... sure, you might be able to unseat a competitive mega corporation. But unlikely in anything resembling a lifetime measured in less than decades.
Imagine being so braindead that instead of listening to users, you arbitrary select down to people who attend a conference, happen to see you, happen to realize you work for Microsoft, happen to care, happen to remember whatever obscure feature they or some coworker needed, and happen to explain it to you in a such a memorable way that you don't forget it, and on top of all that imagine you're so stupid that you think this is a Good Way to Do Things and you manage to rise up the ranks at Microsoft sufficiently high enough that you can influence product direction, or that you ear of those who can.
It actually sounded like they weren't even paying attention to feedback from average users who happened to recognize them at a conf. Instead it sounded like they were focused on feedback from people who work at other bigco's.
As can be seen, if they can't manage something like this that applies equally to Windows 10, about all you can do is work around it or whine about it.
I've recently found information about Windows Vista that enabled more reliable printing in the very latest Windows 11 there is.
It always seems like such sad behavior when people make an effort to remove worthwhile material when there is so much useless waste that is not even addressed.
Hi, I’m an Independent Advisor. It sounds like you expected Microsoft community support to be a valuable resource for answers to your technical problems. I can understand how frustrating that would be. At this point, the most reliable solution is to perform a clean reinstall of Windows.
In the department of literal jokes department: In high school, I discovered that I could flip the power switch of an PS/2 model 25 off and on fast enough such that the capacitors in the linear supply had enough charge to keep the system from rebooting.
Honestly I dont feel it's a loss. Community Support was always very low quality. Lots of terrible low grade problem reports with 59 "me too!"s and a poor agent typing a scripted response that was only tangentially related to the issue. Frankly, a bot trained on reddit and SO would comfortably replace the majority of answers. This is not the Raymond Chen level of problem solving we are talking about.
Don't forget the Microsoft certified diamond elite premier plus MVP of 2002 saving everyones corrupt Exchange installations because microsoft can't be bothered to offer real support
It got its gold watch and is now quietly sipping a Tom Collins by the pool after trimming the bushes, mowing the grass, and reflecting on that that was enough work for today and thankful for not having to get up early and commute into the city anymore.
My go-to reaction to these things that Microsoft does, removing content, is always the same:
Microsoft, are you running low on hosting space, or something?
I mean, how does one of worlds largest software corporations, handing people OneDrive accounts left and right, not to mention all the other digital waste they're busily involved with, lack storage space for some valuable archive pertaining to use of one of the world's most popular OS and associated software suites? Someone should just forbid them to "retire" content, especially if posted by actual people.
Fortunately, The Wayback Machine / Internet Archive works overtime to take upon themselves the responsibility I think would have been best left to Microsoft.
The fact is that hosting is a cost and businesses are always cutting costs
They don’t get to become one of the biggest and most successful companies by providing free services to legacy customers.
Personally, I keep a folder for product manuals. Anything I buy will have a PDF that I archive myself.
Need to change the oily on that generator I bought from Costco five years ago? Not going to find the docs on the web anymore but I have the PDF dated 2020 right here
Obviously that doesn’t work with a searchable software doc site with questions and answers but the fact that webpages could come and go at any time, and digital archival is far worse than clay tablets of antiquity is a lesson we all have to take to heart
I can't imagine using MS products for anything important these days. There are more reliable options for servers, databases, and OS, and those options all have better docs.
His blog does not meet the quota for AI hype and therefore has to be retired, to bring corporate messaging in line with the state-of-the art AI paradigms
In case this thread gets picked up by a search engine and some future person is wondering the same thing, there is a port of winevdm[1] to 64-bit Windows that will let you run 16-bit programs.
MS used to have uservoice pages. They ignored issues, no matter how highly-voted they were. I once asked someone at MS about this, and they said they take their cues from other sources, like what industry partners ask them to fix at conferences.
What a waste of time to have uservoice pages, induce people to post/vote on them, and then just ignore them. I guess it's for the best that they nuked them. They were replaced with pages that said "tweet us". Maybe they have something more robust now, especially since twitter is politically charged/divisive.
The point isn't to resolve user problems, it's to reduce the number of people taking up the time of support agents. Letting people vent in a pseudo-official channel accomplishes that. Whenever something gets resolved that was being fixed anyway, because the "industry partners", enterprise and high level customers wanted it, they can mark an issue as resolved, and generate the appearance of responsive service.
It's like standing up complex automated phone menus, you're going to frustrate a certain number of callers into giving up, and reduce the overall number of customers you have to interact with.
We need a scale reform for modern businesses - platforms and companies like Microsoft are logistically incapable of providing good service to their customers, or moderating hundreds of millions or even billions of users, effectively separating these companies from all the harm they cause.
If you can't responsibly operate a business past a certain scale, you shouldn't be allowed to continue growth. I don't know what that looks like, legally speaking, but it's necessary, for what should be reasons obvious to everyone.
For what it's worth, I'm typing this on my Debian desktop. In my opinion, a far better solution.
The market has failed. It's allowed massive monopolistic and anti-competitive scenarios to play out, and technology outran legislation like crazy. There are billions of people who are a victim of the failure mode I pointed out. You using an alternative (and being here, on this forum) singles you out as one of one in tens of millions of people with the capacity and knowledge to accomplish that.
25 years ago it made sense to let things play out. Now we're looking at ownership by subscription, and people unable to actually own their own devices, with constant, ubiquitous, global surveillance for all but the most wealthy, and even them most of the time. We see a proliferation of some of the worst possible things online, and companies that are unable and unwilling to effectively moderate their billions of users with resorting to heavy handed authoritarian tactics. Tactics which, when recognized by those in power, are quickly taken over and utilized for purposes far beyond anything so prosaic as "protecting children" or "combating terrorism."
Apple and Microsoft and Google and the rest have shown us that the tech market is more or less just like the old steel and oil markets - robber barons rush in, coordinate, distill the market to a handful of effective players, capture regulation and lobby legislation to maximize their own profit, and there is no concomitant return of value to the users or the market in general.
If you're too big to run the business responsibly, you should be legally prohibited from expanding further. This is about as pro-market as you can get, it requires actual unmet needs in any market to be met, and holds those operating in the market to account for their behavior.
This failure is primarily due to regulatory capture, rather than a failed free market approach, for what it’s worth.
You're going to need some actual citations for that narrative before anyone buys into it.
The US refused serious regulation out of fear of stifling a fully-financialized economy. Now that America has no manufacturing capacity and a weak grasp on raw materials, our only lucrative businesses embrace exploitative subscription services, lock-in and planned obsolescence. Every economist in the US could have surmised that this would be an issue following the aforementioned oil/steel rackets. It just switched from the secondary sector to the tertiary sector of the economy.
> Now that America has no manufacturing capacity
This is a meme that doesn't have any bearing in reality. The U.S. remains the world's second-largest manufacturer behind China, with real output reaching an all-time high of $2.5 trillion in 2021. Manufacturing's contribution to U.S. GDP in 2023 was approximately 10.2%, or $2.3 trillion.
The reason the meme persists, I think, is that fewer and fewer folks work in manufacturing, due to a massive increase in automation. In essence, the U.S. didn't offshore manufacturing as much as they automated it. So it seems to have disappeared from an employment perspective, even though in continues to drive the economy.
Automation has significantly boosted productivity and efficiency, enabling higher output, but it has also contributed to the long-term decline in manufacturing employment.
The notion that the U.S. subsists on "exploitative subscription services, lock-in and planned obsolescence" is, while part of the everyday consumer experience, not a good reflection of what is really driving the economy.
I think you might have a slightly off-kilter view of what I mean. Regulation is not inherently good. Large corporations will often work through lobbyists (I don’t think anyone can deny the incredible access powerful lobbyists have in the US) to enact laws purely to stifle competition. An example of this is major groups like Meta directly requesting regulations on major topics, because when a law is in place, you know exactly how to skirt around it and you find all the loopholes you can.
A short overview with some examples on how the US differs from other regions in this respect: https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/regulatory-capture-us-l...
> The market has failed. It's allowed massive monopolistic and anti-competitive scenarios to play out, and technology outran legislation like crazy.
Why is that the market's fault? That's like blaming a river for flowing downhill. The most stable configuration in a free market is a monopoly. Obviously everything eventually ends up as one without intervention. It's a mathematical certainty.
This is 100% on regulators allowing that to happen.
I agree, and now that we have an existence proof for the exact way things have gone wrong, we can see that these companies are exploiting numbers of customers and consumers far greater than they can responsibly handle. We need to legislate what responsible means, in this context, and apply reasonable boundaries and limits on scale. A single company that leaks nearly every person's private information online should be held to account for irresponsible practices, having damaged the entire world, but despite this happening multiple times, they hardly even get a slap on the wrist.
The status quo is untenable. We need better regulations that accommodate reality, and leave regulators no choice but to hold companies and people to account for the harms they do.
> The most stable configuration in a free market is a monopoly.
Free market doesn't mean unregulated. It means that the market reflects the true costs so market participants have free choice. When you have a monopoly, the market is probably not free anymore.
Maybe the market didn't fail. Maybe the market is providing what the consumers demand. Maybe you are an outlier, different from the rest of the consumers.
Do you feel that there is no option for you on the market? Windows, nor Debian, nor Ubuntu, not Mac meet your needs? Do you think that there are others like you, if so then why not start a business and serve that market? You might have tremendous opportunity here.
No capitalism doesn't mean manchester capitalism. Capitalism is about the agency of companies as supposed to government control.
A market without rules isn't free. You need to regulate a market in order to keep it free.
There's another post on hn about how 19% of california homes are owned by investors, and when I saw that I thought to myself "wow, the free market really produced an optimal outcome there."
In a truly free market even in California real estate would be pretty affordable. It's not affordable because there's so many laws that have been passed by people who are trying to protect the culture and value of their area.
Like San Francisco, it's nearly impossible to build anything there.
California housing market is not an example of a free market.
The solution to bad client support channels is... using open source software with no support? I don't think this works at all.
> open source software with no support
Open source means you have as much support as you like to have, because you are the support.
That’s a non-answer. The market very obviously did not produce a better alternative, and we’ve been playing this game for enough decades now to be reasonably confident it won’t—and if it will, Microsoft or some other megacorp will buy them, gut them, and carry on.
Regulation is the proper tool to force corporations to behave in a way that isn’t as harmful to society. This is something that should be regulated.
> For what it's worth, I'm typing this on my Debian desktop. In my opinion, a far better solution.
It’s almost comical how you speak about better alternatives in the context of capitalist markets, where better means reaching a higher market saturation, and then offer a niche solution that has a number of users so tiny that it’s less than a rounding error in any statistic.
The market has created many better alternatives. The iPhone would have not been possible without MS being so ignorant about customers.
You conveniently left out in the context of capitalist markets in your quote. The grandparent argued that legal solutions couldn't solve the problem, but the market could by producing a better solution. If that better solution doesn't displace the incumbent, it is by definition not a better solution, because that would—in the context of this question—imply displacing it, hence the market would have solved the problem.
So whether Debian is addressing your needs better than Windows bears little relevance for the topic at hand.
I quoted as much as I thought necessary to make clear which part of your comment I am referring to.
In any case, I think that the term "better" applies for each consumer, therefore the better solution for any specific consumer does not necessarily have to displace the incumbent.
This comment is almost unfathomable in a world where Windows and MacOS combined has a smaller install-base than Linux.
The capitalists already chose their winners, they just never let down a rope to the consumer market.
> they just never let down a rope to the consumer market
So this is a coded statement that I fear most people won't get, but it's pretty profound.
If I'm getting bigyabai's point, they are saying that people that are professionals at choosing operating systems have overwhelmingly chosen Linux, and it's really in the consumer markets, where folks don't have any special knowledge or judgment, that Windows and MacOS thrive. That's a good insight, because it's completely true. Both Windows and MacOS cater to audiences that, for the most part, don't care or want to care about how technology works, and this makes them vulnerable. Apple and Microsoft capitalize on this.
Your answer, and GP's reference to Debian, is highlighting the misunderstanding very precisely: Microsoft is not just an operating system vendor. If they stopped making Windows tomorrow, Microsoft would still exist and do well economically, because it's a hydra with a thousand heads.
Hence my point: The classical concept of "displacement" doesn't apply to corporations at that scale anymore.
Apple was a relativly small company on the verge of death and came all the way back to surpass Microsoft.
Indeed it did. Thirty years ago, when the world wasn't utterly dominated by giant tech companies like it is now. Back then Microsoft wasn't capable of buying a country if they so desired; they couldn't hold most world governments hostage, didn't have a product portfolio that covers almost any organisation globally, and didn't have a trove of petabytes (more?) of data to train artificial intelligence with.
The world is a different place now, and old rules don't apply anymore.
I actually think Microsoft was much more dominant in the 90s. There really weren't solid alternatives to Windows and that was their Cash cow. Now there's tons of alternatives to virtually everything they do
Are you referring to Android?
I think he's referring to the fact that, while everyone jokes about "year of Linux on the desktop":
In the last 30 years, we moved overwhelmingly from local workloads to internet workloads
We moved overwhelmingly away from desktop and to mobile
Android is the dominant mobile OS, and it's hand-in-hand with Linux at the kernel level
The internet, meanwhile, is powered overwhelmingly by Linux
So I tend to agree that just because normal folks think of "computing" as the Windows or Mac machine sitting in front of them, the world is now predominantly powered by Linux.
... GNU/Linux smth. ...
I generally appreciate the distinction, but I purposely did not use that distinction here because Android is only Linux if you don't include GNU.
The distinction is relevant here, because "year of Linux on the desktop" doesn't refer to Android. The philosophy of "Linux" is that the user has control. That applies more to BSD than Android. Also it's "on the desktop".
I fear we're talking past one another.
Oh sorry is it correct that you meant, that the "year of Linux on the desktop" doesn't matter anymore, because computing switched to mobile and servers and there the Linux kernel is dominating, while I understood that you mean that Android counts toward the "year of Linux on the desktop"?
Yep, exactly!
> We need a scale reform for modern businesses - platforms and companies like Microsoft are logistically incapable of providing good service to their customers, or moderating hundreds of millions or even billions of users, effectively separating these companies from all the harm they cause.
And here is where "you have to spend X number of days a year doing CS" should be a requirement for every engineer, dev, product manger, and executive.
I do not think you understand the level of abject stupidity that customers are capable of. I do not think you understand how likely customers are to do dumb things and blame the company.
Companies who provide support charge more for their products to pay for it. How much? Well how many people break things and then ask for refunds. The company pays for those people by marking up all the other products.
IN any organization: first friend outside your team should be in accounting. The second should be in customer service. These are the most valuable resources you will have regarding the tempo of what is going on inside your organization. They are the front line and the oracles of "truth" (the books dont lie, unless your Enron' and then you have bigger problems).
I worked phone support for a while... I had a customer call about backing up their research paper they were working on (iomega, zip drive). After going back and forth for 20m or so, since the drive light wasn't on...
Me: "Would you be able to pull the computer out into the light so that you can check the connection with better lighting instead of the flashlight?"
Customer: "Not really, the power is out."
I worked on the iomega side, second level support, mostly Jazz and OS/2 calls, knew it was going to be a doozy when I got a non-warm zip customer. MCI operated support call center in Chandler, AZ... pretty sure that's where Safelight Auto Glass operates now.
Related: A buddy on the Compaq side of the call center got the infamous "broken cup holder" call. He could barely contain the laughter and popped up having to tell anyone at that moment about it.
> The point isn't to resolve user problems, it's to reduce the number of people taking up the time of support agents. Letting people vent in a pseudo-official channel accomplishes that. Whenever something gets resolved that was being fixed anyway, because the "industry partners", enterprise and high level customers wanted it, they can mark an issue as resolved, and generate the appearance of responsive service.
Yep. It's like Whitehouse "petitions". Time-wasting tarpits for the unaware.
> It's like standing up complex automated phone menus, you're going to frustrate a certain number of callers into giving up, and reduce the overall number of customers you have to interact with.
The point of pointless troubleshooting procedures, long forms, long wait times, denials, and inconvenience is to monetize misery and create a maximally-negative conversion funnel. Ask any UnitedHealth or airline CEO.
The market has solutions to this, but they are mostly for businesses. E.g. You can purchase "support" either from Microsoft, or other third parties that will then deal with MS for you if they can't fix it themselves. And whatever software you buy also has it's own support terms too. (I've had good experiences with paid AWS support under both models.)
On the flip side: if you're an individual, you're at a poker table with a $50 chip—you don't have leverage—you either just take the bet or don't. So you're basically forced to research the laptop/hardware/software you intend to run to verify it's a happy path, or it at least has vendors (or a local PC store) that will help you if something breaks, and hope for the best.
So I guess the question is, would people be willing to pay for good support? Would people even pay for an OS anymore?
> So I guess the question is, would people be willing to pay for good support?
They're already doing so, just not receiving it. Microsoft made a yearly profit of 101 billion dollars, or better phrased, 101,000 million dollars. The solution isn't "the consumer pays more", it's "investors earn less".
How much of that was from the products discussed in these Q&As?
I wonder if they will purposely train/instruct chatbot help agents to be a bit less helpful, to mimic the friction and frustration that phone trees and such create.
Or perhaps they'll train them to be cheerfully helpful, but to just dump all the feedback in a virtual circular file. If so, would the chatbot admit this is what happens if the user asked them?
Competition. Go build a better product.
At Microsoft scale, common market rules no longer apply. What would you even call their "product" that someone could improve upon? It’s a giant maze of offerings, competing interests, corporate and government relations, revenue streams… hoping for someone to disrupt this due to better support is like hoping for a country to displace the United States for their superior social systems. It’s nonsensical, that’s not how global mega-corporations work.
Sooo you're never going to be able to do what MS did to IBM? You're never going to be able to do what AMD is doing to Intel?
Well... being lucky enough to negotiate a fairly liberal licensing agreement with a tech juggernaut as MS did with IBM for something as critical as the OS? Not likely.
AMD has been making chips literally for decades with investments in Billions. They had to spin their fab business off it was too expensive to keep up with. And even now, it's taken nearly a decade of competitive and leading products to make inroads, and even then they're still under 50% of x86 computers in use.
Linux has been around over 30 years, and is just now cracking 5% desktop market share. This happens while Windows has become less than 10% of Microsoft revenue, with well over a decade of "free" upgrades.
So, yeah, if you're able to get a company started... get billions invested... able to create compelling products without triggering literal mine-fields of IP and legislative restrictions... sure, you might be able to unseat a competitive mega corporation. But unlikely in anything resembling a lifetime measured in less than decades.
If it was easy enough to be even remotely feasible for average HN users then Microsoft would already be long gone.
Because there are likely many many people in this world who had that thought before you.
Imagine being so braindead that instead of listening to users, you arbitrary select down to people who attend a conference, happen to see you, happen to realize you work for Microsoft, happen to care, happen to remember whatever obscure feature they or some coworker needed, and happen to explain it to you in a such a memorable way that you don't forget it, and on top of all that imagine you're so stupid that you think this is a Good Way to Do Things and you manage to rise up the ranks at Microsoft sufficiently high enough that you can influence product direction, or that you ear of those who can.
It's honestly pretty awe inspiring.
It actually sounded like they weren't even paying attention to feedback from average users who happened to recognize them at a conf. Instead it sounded like they were focused on feedback from people who work at other bigco's.
im glad it is politically charged now - that's how it should be if there is a free exchange of ideas!
This question has been re-homed to a farm upstate with other retired questions, and never has to worry about being deleted.
The farm being a single core Pentium machine with 64MiB of memory, 1Gb HDD, and a 10Mbps network connection that gets powered down each evening.
That's an accomplishment in Progressbar95.
This question has been taken to the gravel pit by Kristi Noem.
Do questions get DNRs and have living wills?
Sent to the farm with the bunnies.
At least the title is still there in the URL:
>can-i-open-16-bit-application-in-windows-8?forum=windows-all&referrer=answers
I had good luck using the 32-bit version of W8 & W10. Had to manually enable NTVDM manually beforehand.
For 64-bit Widows IIRC it would open in DOSbox, but it was actually a DOS aplication.
Now there's this:
https://github.com/leecher1337/ntvdmx64
There is also this, which works very well and seems to be less legally sketchy:
https://github.com/otya128/winevdm/
do microsoft has legal basis that MS must keep all of this information???
windows 8 has reach end of life and service, they don't have all obligation to keep support channel for this operating system
As can be seen, if they can't manage something like this that applies equally to Windows 10, about all you can do is work around it or whine about it.
I've recently found information about Windows Vista that enabled more reliable printing in the very latest Windows 11 there is.
It always seems like such sad behavior when people make an effort to remove worthwhile material when there is so much useless waste that is not even addressed.
Hi, I’m an Independent Advisor. It sounds like you expected Microsoft community support to be a valuable resource for answers to your technical problems. I can understand how frustrating that would be. At this point, the most reliable solution is to perform a clean reinstall of Windows.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
In the department of literal jokes department: In high school, I discovered that I could flip the power switch of an PS/2 model 25 off and on fast enough such that the capacitors in the linear supply had enough charge to keep the system from rebooting.
Also the DOS DOS of COPY CON CLOCK$.
Option 2: sfc /scannow
Deleted. Say the word. Say "I deleted it."
I'm sure it's still on their drives somewhere, they'd just rather you ask copilot
Retire the question, so it can be asked again and answered by an LLM, which based its answer on a human answering a now retired question.
Honestly I dont feel it's a loss. Community Support was always very low quality. Lots of terrible low grade problem reports with 59 "me too!"s and a poor agent typing a scripted response that was only tangentially related to the issue. Frankly, a bot trained on reddit and SO would comfortably replace the majority of answers. This is not the Raymond Chen level of problem solving we are talking about.
It felt like anytime I went to the Community Support, they just told you to run a sfc /scannow and pray that would fix your problem
They would also tell you to reboot and make sure Windows Defender was enabled
Don't forget the Microsoft certified diamond elite premier plus MVP of 2002 saving everyones corrupt Exchange installations because microsoft can't be bothered to offer real support
The responses there have always been bad but just a few days ago I saw even worse ones. The question had 2 answers, both AI generated and both wrong.
Some truths are naturally temporal. Such truths are not necessarily of non-historic value. This feels like a cheap move by Microsoft.
Literally, since it's likely just to save some fractions of a penny on yearly storage.
That's probably a huge underestimation. But even if it's in hundreds of dollars, it's still effectively zero for a large company.
It got its gold watch and is now quietly sipping a Tom Collins by the pool after trimming the bushes, mowing the grass, and reflecting on that that was enough work for today and thankful for not having to get up early and commute into the city anymore.
The most frustrating aspect of learn.microsoft.com is putting a -learn.microsoft.com at the end of every search engine query.
Sign up to Kagi and add learn.microsoft.com to your blocked-domains list. Solved :)
My go-to reaction to these things that Microsoft does, removing content, is always the same:
Microsoft, are you running low on hosting space, or something?
I mean, how does one of worlds largest software corporations, handing people OneDrive accounts left and right, not to mention all the other digital waste they're busily involved with, lack storage space for some valuable archive pertaining to use of one of the world's most popular OS and associated software suites? Someone should just forbid them to "retire" content, especially if posted by actual people.
Fortunately, The Wayback Machine / Internet Archive works overtime to take upon themselves the responsibility I think would have been best left to Microsoft.
The fact is that hosting is a cost and businesses are always cutting costs
They don’t get to become one of the biggest and most successful companies by providing free services to legacy customers.
Personally, I keep a folder for product manuals. Anything I buy will have a PDF that I archive myself.
Need to change the oily on that generator I bought from Costco five years ago? Not going to find the docs on the web anymore but I have the PDF dated 2020 right here
Obviously that doesn’t work with a searchable software doc site with questions and answers but the fact that webpages could come and go at any time, and digital archival is far worse than clay tablets of antiquity is a lesson we all have to take to heart
I can't imagine using MS products for anything important these days. There are more reliable options for servers, databases, and OS, and those options all have better docs.
I clicked through hoping for an interesting Raymond Chen post. I was disappointed.
Just wait until they retire Raymond Chen's blogs, because he uses too many paragraphs, or isn't corporately bland enough, or something.
It’s quite likely that in a website redesign after Raymond Chen retires, his blog will be retired as well.
I'm not even a Windows user, but I feel very much like scraping and stashing them away.
His blog does not meet the quota for AI hype and therefore has to be retired, to bring corporate messaging in line with the state-of-the art AI paradigms
What was the question?
From the URL, i'd say: "can i open 16 bit application in windows 8?"
In case this thread gets picked up by a search engine and some future person is wondering the same thing, there is a port of winevdm[1] to 64-bit Windows that will let you run 16-bit programs.
[1] https://github.com/otya128/winevdm
Hi slater! I'm sltr. Which is the same name but without vowels.
my nemesis! :D
"This was not called deletion. It was called retirement."
How many computers run windows 8?
This info is not some special epoch to anything. Save the resource use.
This is high tech not conservative politics. What's high tech about old operating systems?
More than zero. There are some people who will keep maintaining them, and could use this - or one of other retired questions.
There is also historic value, it would be sad if in 30 years almost all information about modern day operating systems is erased.
A few kilobytes of text is not a resource that needed saving.