In fact, they could've just kept it the same as Windows 10 because this exact system was under "Choose defaults by app", along with a "Choose defaults by protocol" option, at the bottom of the defaults apps pane.
Windows 11 is a step back from more granular control considering there is no longer the option to change defaults by protocol. Instead, you need to go through multiple apps to see which protocols each app supports rather than going straight to the protocol/file type you want to change the default for.
Specifically, they had chosen a window size that placed the "default web browser" selector conveniently scrolled off the bottom. It would never be scrolled into view by default, even if the defaults control panel had been explicitly opened for the purpose of setting a default browser.
My only point is that, even by their own logic, it's a step backwards, which makes the stated reason seem like straight up deceit.
Microsoft was deliberately showing blog spam, just to route users to bing. I can't understand how that's a good business model.
Gotta hedge your bets.
haven't had a Windows machine for a couple years so I'm wondering - is there still a registry and are protocols still registered in it? I'm obviously not thinking about everyday users going through that to change permissions, just thinking about me.
It's the same with ads; everyone claims Window 10 shows ads but I never saw any ads and I doubt it even has the capability of downloading and displaying random ads. It does occasionally show "recommendations" for using its apps (like Edge or Teams) and I guess if you squint really hard you could call those "ads", but I never saw an actual advertisement for some 3rd party website or product or anything of the sorts.
Yes, Windows 10 is bloated and the fact MS refuses to release a SKU with fully opt-out telemetry is bad, but this kind of hyperbole rubs me the wrong way.
> One of the ongoing feedback items we’ve heard is how the apps that come preinstalled with Windows will reinstall after each upgrade – particularly noticeable for our Insiders that receive multiple flights per month. We’ve heard your feedback, and starting with Build 14926, when your PC updates it will check for apps that have been uninstalled, and it will preserve that state once the update has completed. This means if you uninstall any of the apps included in Windows 10 such as the Mail app or Maps app, they will not get reinstalled after you update to a newer build going forward.
"Oops, we totally forgot to consider that any users would want to uninstall this bloatware, so we just included it again as part of each update. And definitely no one inside our organization had personally uninstalled Candy Crush, pointed out this problem, and had their concerns ignored because we wanted to maximize the number of installs that our partners are paying us for. User experience is our highest priority, and what're you going to do about it, switch to Linux?"
https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2016/09/14/announc...
To me, that is a whole new level of slime. Even for Windows, that shocked me.
I sent one once through their "Send Feedback" thing and someone actually got back to me (several months later, but still).
FWIW, I'm using wireless headphones that have the same 2 options (for calls and for "gaming") but never had the issue you're describing (though they're not Bluetooth, they come with a custom usb dongle).
I've seen ads for Bejeweled, Farmville, and Twitter, before I disabled them all.
An ad would be a banner that shows up when you open the Start menu with "meet singles near you" or "try ubereats" or "buy Chevrolet cars" or some other bullshit of that sorts.
A third-party paying to have a small poster ('Tile') that shows + links to their product is the very definition of an ad.
They're ads. Just like product placement in videos. When the actor is drinking Coca-Cola(tm) with the label pointed perfectly to the camera, that's an ad.
The fact that it doesn't "feel" like an ad to you, is just the industry adapting to audiences general dislike of "obvious" ads.
I don't think those are nearly as bad as ads for third party products and services, but they're still ads.
Windows seems to leave UEFI stuff alone.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17946282/whats-the-hash-...
User Friendly, as long as by "friendly" you mean "actively sabotaging"
The great irony here is that we - technical people - have done this to ourselves. We opt out of telemetry (as we should IMO) as a default so out usage patterns never get sent to the mothership. So of course Windows gets dumbed down, options disappear, and the OS gets targeted at the normal folk.
I have no horse in this race to be fair as a linux user but I do find it amusing.
It is really quite refreshing to have some of the freedom from the "old days" back. Honestly, I don't think I'll go back for private usage. Work is different, a) because employers provide hard- and software and b) because Office 365 is quite good for corporate use.
(I ask because I'm genuinely curious, not just playing devil's advocate -- I strongly suspect that even in 2000, Microsoft was collecting user data. But I'm to young to have been in the industry at the time, so maybe telemetry just wasn't that big in 2000?)
There's no irony here. Even if every single technically apt user sent their feedback to Microsoft at once, it would still be drowned out by the 99% of the general population that clicks through everything without reading or adjusting.
It's not even close, and we shouldn't be giving MS the benefit of the doubt anymore, considering what they've done to Windows in the last 10 years. They did it deliberately, while hiding behind "improving user experience" and "security".
They do in the Netherlands
I hope the EU sues them again over this. Same with the cookie banner, by law there should be a single click 'no thanks' button.
I don't think that should be acceptable until Microsoft provides a way for developer to sign their programs at no cost.
Instead, I wrote a little thing myself[1] to make a distinction based on the pattern matching the URL. I took the chance to learn a bit more about Deno and deploying standalone apps, which I don't regret, since it was actually super easy, but I still wish I didn't have to. (Note: that utility isn't quite ready to be used easily, it needs to default the config file to a more standard location for the user to be easily useful as an filetype/URL target).
Really what I would like is a two step association list. Be able to specify what category a particular file type is under (i.e. text file, web browser file, etc.) as well as specifying which text file or web browser should be used in general. Obviously many file types only need a direct association with an application, but that is not always the case and as is the case with text files, it may not be possible for an application installer to know all extensions it needs to associate with itself.
So the usual way of working is to use a text window (with a nicely juiced up set of environment variables) to go to a relevant directory. Uh, several directories are fairly easy also since a command line MARK A will set environment variable MARK.A to the directory name and command G A will make that directory current, for A, B, AB, C, ABC, .... Then with a directory current, use command K to run script K.REX to run KEDIT which right away displays the directory contents and right away gives me lots of ways to edit, manipulate, select lines in the display. Then one keystroke can view a file, that is, run my KEDIT macro VIEW.KEX which is pretty smart on what program to run to process that file.
I have, let's see, in my main collection of KEX macros 265 macros!
That process works for essentially all my typing for any and all reasons -- email, blog posts, macro writing, code writing, TeX word processing, PDF file reading, movie watching, etc. I'm thrilled, happy as a clam, especially with the Windows file system NTFS -- not so thrilled with some other aspects of Windows.
Though, 99% of my VS code use is launched from terminal anyway, and I can always right-click. That said, the Win11 right-click menu buries most of the options.
Windows keeps thinking that it knows where I want files for music, movies, documents, images, etc. Nope, for me it knows no such things. If Windows was correct, then I would be making only nearly trivial use of Windows. Going back to PC/DOS, I knew where I wanted files, had my own way of keeping track of files, and still do.
All you need is a single "apply to all prompt" when a user toggles for one of the extensions.
Let's hope Windows 12 solves these problems, as 10 solved 8's.
The only reason why I was not using Windows was that it did not have enough user options.
You cannot get file/uri associations correct in a UX in a way that handles all situations. Essentially, this is a subset of the "many to many relations in database tables fundamentally suck" problem, and every time this happens where it is directly exposed to the user it has never turned out well.
Combine the potential UI/UX nightmare of this with literal actual criminals putting malware on the PCs of technologically illiterate users: it now hijacks 15 different file/uri associations in ways that are not easily fixed.
What Microsoft should do? Do an Android-style ask (yes, the one that all the people like us hate) every time a new handler can be associated. What they can't do? Expressly this because it didn't exist in Win98 when they added uri handler system to the existing file handler system, and Microsoft is obsessed with backwards compat.
Side note: Technically, Firefox could trigger the OTHER existing API for this that UWP apps are forced to use as per MS Store sandboxing, from the C++ WinRT API; any app could. It isn't well documented, and isn't the intended use but WinUI 3.x's path is allowing apps to piecemeal their way into the future without all-or-nothing rewrites. I'm not going to insult Mozilla by saying they "choose not to", I'd rather someone else jump in the deep end first on that.
How Microsoft ended up fixing the actual issue at hand? Removing the need to get another browser in the first place, but still allowing technologically literate users to install one if they want. Edge is Chrome, but without the boneheaded decisions Google makes ruining it, and actually moving forwards in usability.
Edge has vertical tabs built in, it has an actually visually correct dark theme built in[1], has the existing bookmark/history/open tab/etc syncing (which some Chromium-based browsers still do not, as they have to write their own backend), it has an Android version (many desktop Chromium browsers do not have a matching phone version), it has the beginnings of a ABP/uBlock style ad blocker built in (its already in the Android version as well) (Chrome will never ship with adblocking built in, Google's entire business model depends on their ad network), its the first Chromium-based browser that supports the VBS-based hardware-enforced browser sandbox (Microsoft wants to bring it to all Chromium-based things including Electron apps), and it also has tab collections built in (which is also supported on the Android version), and last but not least, they have an actually working PWA container on the desktop (reviving the code Google killed because they didn't want a future where Android couldn't be a vendor lock-in moat).
The number of extensions I need to make Edge actually productive is less than any other browser.
You know what Mozilla brought me? Panorama, which is now gone. An extension system that could actually deeply modify the UI (thanks to XUL), which is now gone (and has been replaced with a partial WebExtension implementation). A PWA-first OS, called FirefoxOS, that would be lighter and faster than Android by several magnitudes, which is now gone. An Electron alternative that used Gecko instead, called Positron, also gone. A PWA container for the desktop called Prism, also dead.
Almost everything Mozilla thought of, half-assed, and then killed, Edge has succeeded, and brought to not only Windows, but OSX, Linux, and Android too, and also salvaged the slowly rotting Chromium codebase at the same time.
[1]: Dark themes should never have backgrounds darker than 16, as the eye has poor "bright on dark" focusing, but most monitors, even ones being sold today, have very poor tracking of values below the limited 16-240 range (even HDR monitors); the two of those together make standard viewing conditions (dimly lit office or indirect sunlight lit room or single 60W equivalent on a desk in a small bedroom, with a 100 nits monitor (sRGB defines optimal brightness as 80 nits + offset for ambient, BT1886 defines SDR white as 100 if not otherwise calibrated, BT2020 defines SDR content in HDR display mode as 100)) hard to read for standard distance and DPI monitors (ex: 24" 1080p or 27" 1440p at ~29 inches, given a 1.2 ratio of screen size to distance) at the standard text size (16px).
Dark themes that have pure black for misguided reasons should be eradicated for user accessibility reasons; contrast and readability are very important for everyone, not just people with diagnosed vision problems.
I mean, the average user has been capable of installing and using alternative browsers for a significant period of time. Most folks exist as some shade of gray between your Grandma with an Ask toolbar and the "HN elites." If anything, I think there is often an underestimation of what regular users understand and are willing to do with their tech (to improve their experience, privacy, etc.) If you need some sort of a sanity check, see how your friends and peers (that don't work in software) configure their systems. See what browsers they use, what adblockers they configure, etc. I predict you'd be surprised.
I rarely meet this "average user" who is often discussed on HN; this person who isn't interested in using non-standard software, who doesn't care at all about their privacy, who will use only the easiest and cheapest solution possible, etc. Dark patterns don't just work on these "average users," they work on plenty who even work in tech. I click "Accept All" on the cookie banner on this one-off website if it's the fastest way to read the contents, I will put off changing default apps if I have to hunt for the correct settings, heck I've been charged for subscriptions an extra month because I put off dealing with the hassle of cancelling the thing.
I think this "average user" is constructed in the collective imagination because it makes implementing user-hostile design choices a little more conscionable if you view your users as tech illiterate morons. Considering the state of the industry, one where dark patterns and user hostility permeate nearly every design choice, it doesn't surprise me that HN, a subset of this industry, holds this dim view of its users.
> If you need some sort of a sanity check, see how your friends and peers (that don't work in software) configure their systems
Everyone I know who doesn't work in tech "configures" their system by calling me and saying, "it doesn't work" (no other details provided), and asking if I can just fix it.
> I rarely meet this "average user"...who isn't interested in using non-standard software...doesn't care about privacy...will use only the easiest and cheapest solution
Consider yourself lucky, and consider the circles you travel in are may not be reflective of the majority of users.
The longer we consider concepts like user freedom and privacy as only things that "HN elites" would appreciate, the more tolerable user-hostile design choices will be among HN types.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/96-of-us-users-opt-o...
So many of my coworkers at every job have just blindly accepted all defaults for Windows, macOS, etc. setups. Even when something really annoys them, they'll only occasionally express it... and when I show them that it's a setting they can actually change to better suit their workflow, they're super grateful and excited at this new thing they learned. As if they couldn't possibly have navigated to preferences on their own.
Even things that are massively broken, like my dad's router that was constantly overheating and shutting down because it was stacked in the back of a closet surrounded by other crap, many people just accept and move on from.
My personal favorite? I'm constantly frustrated by almost everything I do in the Spotify app:
- General lagginess, slowness to start up or respond to clicks
- loading in albums and playlists that reorganizes the homescreen as a I scroll and try to click on things
- albums I click on that never load unless I back out and click on them again
- music that shows up as "playing" but doesn't actually play any audio
- unplugging headphones leading to half a second of audio blasting out my speakers because the app takes so long to respond to the headphone disconnect event...
I asked a software engineer friend if he's ever frustrated by those same things. He said "it's fine." I showed him some of these frustrations (because they're very replicable).
He said "it's fine. It plays music, what else do you want it to do?"
Most people are content with mediocrity. Perfect example: the folks who use built-in apps on Samsung phones that display ads in between weather and text messages and emails.
Even if the lowest common denominator can navigate the settings (eventually) it’s still not an excuse to make shitty UX paradigms. This is a company with some of the best and brightest engineers—and we’re on three decades of Windows… and they can’t figure out how to design a proper defaults page? Come on.
I don't understand your complaint about Firefox's dark mode; I've been using it for years and I don't remember any pure black elements. And as far as extensions, Firefox may be missing a couple minor APIs but it's the only browser that doesn't block the important ones (e.g. the ones uBlock Origin needs) so ad companies can make more money.
It was removed from the core browser because they reached the point where it could be entirely implemented in an extension, and also wasn’t as popular as they’d hoped. … it should then be noted that it can no longer be perfectly implemented in a WebExtensions world; there are some compromises that need to be made, comparatively minor is my impression but I don’t use it (I used Panorama at first, but found before long that multiple windows and Tree Style Tab was more useful to me).
> An extension system that could actually deeply modify the UI (thanks to XUL), which is now gone (and has been replaced with a partial WebExtension implementation).
Replaced for entirely legitimate performance reasons, even if you ignore the security and maintainability arguments. As with many things, it’s a balance. So long as userChrome.css still works, I’m fairly OK with where things lie.
> Firefox OS, Positron, Prism
Sigh. Yeah. I’d count XULRunner here too. I won’t comment on Firefox OS or Prism, but I believe a substantial reason in the killing of XULRunner and Positron is that they were too hard to maintain and held progress on Firefox back.
> Almost everything Mozilla thought of, half-assed, and then killed, Edge has succeeded
It’s funny how these things go: an early implementer before its time, and then later something else reinvents much the same thing but actually succeeds at it. The first two examples of this that my mind always springs to are actually both Microsoft: HTA, which was basically Electron lite, but in 1999; and tablet PCs in the mid-2000s, that quite flopped because the hardware wasn’t quite right yet, and so Microsoft abandoned the space and licked their wounds for another decade before returning (with the iPad and Android tablets having occupied the space, including things like ASUS’s Eee Pad Transformers).
And the related phenomenon of cycles like how OSes used to be all colour-customisable, then they steadily lost that, then eventually they all added dark modes back in again, treating it as something all new and never-before-seen.
> Dark themes
You’re subscribing to the common fallacy that dark themes are just one thing. The fact of the matter is that there are actually several substantially different types of dark modes. This is theory I’ve been mulling over for the last few years; I’ve vacillated between reckoning three and four types and exactly where to draw lines, but I’m currently going with four: ① æsthetic, which is fairly low contrast and certainly avoids true black and white; ② accessibility, which is high contrast in both colours and styles (that is, no gentle gradients, just harsh boundaries between colours), and uses true black and white—note here that light accessibility mode is much more likely to be useful than dark accessibility mode, but both have a place; ③ low-light, which uses true black and mostly fairly bright whites up to and including true white, but is not scared of in-between colours or actively trying for super-high contrast; and ④ power-saver, which is largely for things like OLED panels, where true black definitely uses less power and can look great, and certainly not for TN LCD panels where true black tends to look awful. Which type of dark mode is most appropriate depends on the user’s eyesight, the device screen type, the ambient lighting conditions, the nature of the content being presented, user preference, and power availability.
My experience with "normal" people; we the nerds told them to install chrome 10 years ago and now they are used to it.
Personally I use Firefox and have done since it came out as it's fast enough for me and I'm not a front-end dev so the dev tools suit my limited use.
So maybe it is more popular than we think. Very hard to know for sure.
iOS is a very important platform for Firefox, so apples anti-competitive behavior in this regard really undermines firefox's future.
I'm very sad that this issue has not come up in all of the debate about the app store.
It's still the default, and defaults matter.
Microsoft's statement on this: we are implementing customer feedback to customize and control defaults at a more granular level, eliminating app categories and elevating all apps to the forefront of the defaults experience.
More granular control is nice and all, but I don't buy for a second that it couldn't be behind some "advanced" button. I think the most probable explanation for removing the app categories is a calculated move to steer people towards Microsoft products which have access to backdoor internal functions to change all of these automatically.
I do remember how bad things were back in Windows XP days when every random toolbar would change all the associations. I don't wish for that experience to come back for non technical users either. Microsoft could perhaps look into allowing digitally signed apps to change the associations automatically (a single summarizing OS confirmation prompt might be wise), and non-signed apps would have to instruct users to manually change things.
--
[1] https://www.theverge.com/22630319/microsoft-windows-11-defau...