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?
I couldn’t have written it better.
The only disagreement I’d have is that Win2k was the major turning point when NT architecture hit mainstream. Suddenly we had NT core with a UI that users understood and dynamic events (PnP).
Though for us in IT, NT4 was the major turning point - a solid OS that you could actually use in business.
XP brought a lot more user functionality (plus better performance), and Windows 7 brought the current version of 64-bit architecture.
Your point about working in the enterprise nails it - you simply can’t pivot just because “this is a better way”. Does the current shovel still dig a ditch? Then replacing all the shovels with this fancy new one that weighs 6oz less isn’t a useful way to expend resources (time/money/management overhead/etc).