- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Let’s put it this way; when Microsoft announced its plans to start adding features to Windows 10 once again, despite the operating system’s inevitable demise in October 2025, everyone expected slightly different things to see ported over from Windows 11. Sadly, the latest addition to Windows 10 is one of the most annoying changes coming from Windows 11’s Start menu.
Earlier this year, Microsoft introduced a so-called “Account Manager” for Windows 11 that appears on the screen when you click your profile picture on the Start menu. Instead of just showing you buttons for logging out, locking your device or switching profiles, it displays Microsoft 365 ads. All the actually useful buttons are now hidden behind a three-dot submenu (apparently, my 43-inch display does not have enough space to accommodate them). Now, the “Account Manager” is coming to Windows 10 users.
The change was spotted in the latest Windows 10 preview builds from the Beta and Release Preview Channels. It works in the same way as Windows 11, and it is disabled by default for now because the submenu with sign-out and lock buttons does not work.
You asked for an example. I’m not going to spend a lot of time thinking of the best example when any example will do. For some, sure it’s more difficult. Like that fake triangle tablet. Is that something you could get used to or learn to live with? Yeah, but why should you spend time learning how to “fix” it when everybody else does it a different and standard way? For a desktop it’s also one of the most important UI elements on screen FYI. The first introduction to a new user shouldn’t be to confuse them for no reason.
But I’ll circle back to it’s just being different for the sake of being different, not because it’s better or easier. Unless you have some point on how it’s somehow better and more intuitive, again, it’s just hipster app development.
Re: KDE, I do use it on the Linux desktop I rarely touch. It’s also used on my Bazzite box for if I ever need desktop mode. The KDE defaults aren’t perfect but they’re the most sane of all the environments I’ve tried, and believe me over the last 22 years I think I’ve probably tried them all at some point. Calling any example I bring up trivial would be fine, but aren’t your gripes with Windows also trivial and something you couldn’t just work around?
It just really isn’t an example that ‘will do’, though. I’m not saying it’s a trivial problem; I’m saying it’s not a problem by any stretch of the imagination. If the app launcher being on a different fixed part of the screen is a problem to you, then you should just stay away from computing in general. I know, however, that it’s not a problem, which is why I’m calling out your example.
Okay and on the note of different for the sake of being different: back to the MacOS examples I provided: why do MacOS dock the program toolbar at the top of the screen and only show it for one focused program at a time? Is this not in contrast to how everyone else does it? It doesn’t offer any meaningful improvement and is slightly less functional (when multiple windows are open simultaneously). Why is this the best desktop OS and not just ‘hipster design’?
Random mandatory updates which steal my computer’s focus, force reboots and often reset user settings aren’t trivial to me. They waste time and they happen with predictable regularity. Any given workaround might be randomly undone at the next update. Using a tonne of RAM and processing power in system idle is also not trivial. Encrypting my hdd and locking me out over minor occurrences as designed implementation is not trivial. Whatever is coming in copilot is not trivial.
These are just examples off the top of my head. KDE could programme their app launcher to dodge my cursor every time I tried to click on it, and I’d still take it over Windows for ease of use.
To me, every Windows gripe you just listed is trivial to work around. What I’m saying, perhaps poorly, is why should I have to work around them. Why aren’t the defaults sane and just work? KDE has the most sane defaults to me for a Linux DE that follow written and unwritten industry standards, but generally speaking it’s the exception and not the rule and I’d still prefer using something else. Using Linux as a desktop is irritating. Just a lot of “why is it like that? That’s dumb.” It’s not that it’s just sooooo impossible to use a desktop with a launcher in another position. It’s that I think it’s a stupid decision and have to spend time researching if and how that mistake can be fixed when I shouldn’t have to. It’s ok to stand on the shoulders of giants and do what everybody has been doing and expecting for the last 40+ years.
Why does macOS stick the toolbar along the top? Apple thinks it’s better UX design to have a unified area for that UI element regardless of window position. Makes sense. Passes the sniff test. Gnome sticking the bar on the left edge enhances the user experience and makes the environment easier to use? No, doesn’t pass the sniff test. But I agree, macOS does toolbars different. I would prefer if Windows adopted that design too. But if something deviates from a standard and you have no reasoning to how it improves anything or enhances the UX, hipster design. Different for the sake of being different.
And that’s just bizarre. That Windows needs 4GB of RAM and can’t have a low idle processor is trivial to you, but the app launcher icon being in a slightly different place in a Linux DE provokes your bewilderment is actually just lunacy.
Again in trying to make your point, you’re giving your reaction to examples you don’t provide. I get that you find Linux irritating, but you’re not really attempting to qualify why that is. When I provided examples of how Windows wastes my time, you just dismissed them as trivial. So all I can conclude is that the problems you’re coming up with Linux’s design are so trivial that you can’t even think of them.
I actually move the taskbar to the side of the screen in any OS that will let me. Why? Because screens are wide and documents are vertical. Makes sense to me. Just because you can’t fathom a design reason for it, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Does it being on the left really necessitate research or a learning process on your part? No, so why are you pretending it does?
A unified position for every program toolbar doesn’t objectively increase functionality, but it has the downside of forcing the user to focus the window before they can access the toolbar. In my opinion it’s a slight net decrease in UX. It seems like it’s mostly done to be different.
Yes, it’s trivial because it doesn’t impact workflow or productivity. I don’t run out of RAM but if I did it would just page old data out to disk. It could be improved but it’s not something that needs fixing so I don’t care (and FYI if you have less physical memory Windows will just use less. I remember testing Windows 10 with 2G of RAM on a Core2Duo years ago because I was curious.) Wasting literally any amount of my productivity time because something doesn’t follow industry standards is irritating. And for clarity I’m not simply talking about the panel/bar.
Computers are tools. When I use a computer it’s because I want to do something specific, not do something and also deal with the operating system at the same time. I want it to work as a tool should. Intuitively. Like, I love Bazzite which is technically a desktop Linux distribution if you’re loose with the definition of desktop. When I sit down on the couch and want to play a video game for an hour, Bazzite just works. Windows would work just as well there but I won’t fault Bazzite for that. The tool does the job and does it intuitively. Different is fine as long as it’s intuitive and/or improves the user experience. When I look at Gnome for example I just can’t see it improving anything. It’s doing its own thing and its own thing isn’t very good.
Frankly, yes. You’re half-right. To list out every problem I have with every Linux desktop I’ve used over the last 20 years I would have to sit down and use them all again and re-frustrate myself all over again. I don’t spend my free time reminiscing of bad software design. When I have shitty experiences with something I don’t continue with it. I remember some problems with Ubuntu in the Unity days was the left panel and something to do with the screen being mostly taken up by something that I can’t remember when you clicked the launcher, but I remember it was translucent. I also remember hardware support sucked on the older kernels Ubuntu used but I think I’m dating myself there. As some other commenter pointed out, the Samba credential caching is a PITA. Gnome 3 needs additional tweaks or terminal commands to change anything to be more like what you’d expect to find on 9 out of 10 computers around the world. Some distros or DE’s put the window controls on the wrong side like macOS (yes, I hate that macOS puts window controls on the unintuitive side). This may have changed at some point, I don’t know, but historically installing some applications will invariably use some other UI kit and look completely out of place. I feel like I shouldn’t have brought that up and opened that can of worms either, but Linux desktops are generally ugly. KDE is fine. Gnome is so-so. Budgie has potential. If you count Steam’s TV mode, it’s both intuitive and aesthetically pleasing. Everything else I’ve used is just ugly regardless of its ease of use.
Anyway, I’m finished. Think what you want about Linux desktops. I’ll think what I want. Both of us have better things to do than this.