I’ve often heard that the reason Windows has suffered from bloat and so much has been built on top of ancient underlying technologies, partially to ensure compatibility with old software.
If something like Windows 11 requires specific hardware in order to install it, why does it need to accommodate compatibility for archaic devices/software?
Would it not be preferable for Microsoft to start from scratch with an OS that is considerably more efficient and cut-down for newer devices, similar to something like Apple’s MacOS transition from Intel to Apple Silicon, and just provide security updates for the legacy operating systems that would be in use on un-upgradable hardware?
What financial incentive is there in user retention and code improvements? Windows licences likely don’t contribute a large share of MSFTs income (would have to look it up, but am currently sitting in a train with just a smartphone) and even with all the shit since Win11, Windows is still the largest OS by far.
MSFT is earning a lot of money with AI & cloud. Any increase in revenue there likely dwarf possible gains in Windows improvements.
Is that a serious question?
Simplified codebase = fewer internal resources required.
User retention = continued revenue streams from applications and services that run on that platform.
It is, not from a technical pov but from an investment pov. I very well understand the benefit as a person in IT, but what do you think is more important to investors? Spending (significant) resources on behind-the-scenes improvements that may keep some income flowing vs spending resources on the new AI hype tool to be sold to better paying enterprise customers?
I don’t endorse that mode of operation (team 🐧), but that seems to be what’s happening.