And that’s okay, however those same people are the ones saying Windows is unusable because it would take a very long time to disable analytics. This is the thing, people aren’t consistent.

No. It means if you upgrade a system from 21h2 to 22h2 Microsoft may have added new stuff in there that you’ve to review because if you connect it the internet right away those new “features” may connect to them.

Consider this example: Windows 11 before and after the Copilot shit. You can completely disable Copilot and other AI features using group policy however if you’re on the “before” version you can’t disable the feature because it isn’t there already, if you upgrade, the features would be there with defaults and on the first boot it might great you with a “welcome to copilot” that will connect to Microsoft.

I am assuming that is on purpose?

Most likely, “normie” don’t even know Enterprise exist…

With that said, you may find links here:

https://massgrave.dev/windows_10_links

Business ISO includes both Pro and Enterprise versions. On the same website you can find activation tools including HWID that will give you a valid digital license for your hardware that will survive a reinstallation of windows.

Just as a note if you’ve any Windows 10 Pro machines around you can upgrade them to Enterprise by just changing the key to a generic one under settings. A clean install of Enterprise would be better but you can still do it that way if you don’t want the trouble / spend more time with it.

Never seen that guide. Does it actually work?

Yes, best results with Enterprise.

It won’t implode, and it becomes a zero maintenance OS.

Windows out of the box is full of crap but we all know that a lot of large companies use it and Microsoft is kinda forced into making it feasible enough for those companies. If you’re managing let’s say 500+ machines you can’t deal with the bullshit that comes with Windows 10 Home / Pro and systems that break every week.

There are also a lot of govt agencies and private companies with very strict security policies that can’t just allow Windows to connect to MS and leak information around. If you simply disable what you don’t need by following that manual things will really work out.

On the corporate world those changes are typically applied using AD, however, if you apply them manually in group policy they’ll stick and you won’t be bothered. Don’t forget to check the link every time there’s a major version because they usually add stuff.

I installed Windows 10 Enterprise 1709 on my main desktop in 2018 and applied the stuff documented there… I’ve been upgrading since then and it’s currently running 22H2 just fine. No policy regressions like some people claim.

Microsoft is forced to provide ways for big customers to make Windows usable and those aren’t going away anytime soon, they’ve a financial incentive to do so.

Linux is great, and does a lot of stuff right… however…

I just don’t get the people around there sometimes. They’re okay with spending 1000+ hours jumping between 30 different Linux distros and customizing their DE, dealing with Wine / virtualization crap. BUT they aren’t able to Windows 10 Enterprise and read the manual to get a clean usable system in 1/1000 of the time and effort.

How ironic.

The ads in win10 pushed me to the limit

Never seen them. But Microsoft does document how to disable everything you would like to.

I don’t just don’t get why do the same people who bitch a lot about Windows (not you) are unable to install Windows 10 Enterprise and read the manual BUT they are able to jump between 30 different Linux distros and spend 100x more time customizing their DE and dealing with Wine / virtualization crap. Ironic.

I know, I know, but trust me that a lot of people believe that they don’t issue security patches fast.

“oh but Debian only has old stuff” , yeah sure. :P

That’s what the paper was about, the law also applies the in reverse, adding the space protects the user because it makes it harder to click on the hitbox.

But something that’s different would rationally be called not copying, whereas you categorize it as poor copying. Interesting.

I would categorize it as poor copying because the copy doesn’t conform to the design / UX patterns that were present on the “original” work.

My point is: if you want to copy / be inspired by others at least do it right.

+1 for this. This is kinda the same issue with encoding, just UTF-8 everything and move on.

it is trivial to disable all animations

Yeah you can go into settings and toggle of a switch, however they don’t disable everything. ~

Whenever you go into Settings > Accessibility > Enable Animations and disable it one would expect that ALL animations would be disabled while in fact they aren’t. It should behave like Xfce that is, click on something and get the instant result, no delay, no very small animation / fade like GNOME still does.

Bottom line: that option in GNOME is misleading and doesn’t do what it advertises.

To be honest I felt a bit lost on MacOs Catalina and felt like everything was difficult compared to Gnome.

Just because you aren’t used to the macOS workflow it doesn’t mean it is bad - that’s the same argument you GNOME fan boys do with Windows users ;)

But I guess Gnome is taking a lot of inspiration from the MacOs aesthetic, and it’s okay with me because it looks great.

Yes, it’s okay, and that was never an issue in this discussion. The issue is that they didn’t took enough inspiration on basic UX patterns.

This is an application of Fitts’s law. I saw some paper referencing it to back that kind of margins on destructive actions but I don’t remember the title.

Your point being…?

Apple thinks their users are smart enough to use tags, while Gnome developers think the user are too dump to use tags

Isn’t this ironic? The DE with a user base that is way more tech savvy people thinks users can’t use tags.

macOS has no proper software management, all apps try to up-sell me on their shitty i-cloud offerings,

What are you talking about?? At least on macOS app icons are consistent not the crap they are on GNOME.

macOS (…) setup cannot be properly automated

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Apple makes automated setup even easier than it is on MS ecosystems, companies can literally buy a computer on the Apple Store and have it shipped to an employee with the companie’s profile pre-installed by Apple without even needing to touch or open the box. The employee get’s the computer, opens the box and just has to login with this corporate account.

You’ve Apple’s own MDM, Jamf, JumpCloud and so many others. Even Ansible can be used to configure, setup and automated macOS deployments.

macOS feels too slow for the hardware it runs on…

Well at least it doesn’t like a 5 second pointless fade animation after every single click like GNOME does, nor does it bundle web technologies for theming that make the DE be as slow as it can get when it comes to rendering a new window.

You aren’t wrong, but that has nothing to do with he issue at hand. They should copy each other if a solution is good, and that’s the issue here, GNOME forgot to copy a good UX practice that Apple actually took the time to implement.

According to the UX experts you don’t need the space between the save and discard buttons as long as the “save” is the first one. Missclick are more prone to happen from top to bottom than the other way around, so if the user wanted to hit “save” it’s more likely he will click above the button than it is to click “discard”. Same logic applied down there, when the using is looking to cancel it’s easier to missclick and hit the “discard” button than anything else.

I’m curious what you are referring to losing work due to a misclick?

If you place “Discard” and “Cancel” next to each other, without a margin in between, is easier a user looking to click on “Cancel” to click on “Discard” and lose a document. This is more common than people think and that’s why Apple added the margin there and also why any good UX manual tells you to add a margin for destructive operations like that one.