this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
603 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

86745 readers
4130 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo 9 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Bring back windows 2000.. Being forced to upgrade to XP just to get wifi integration was saddening, and the point where I jumped ship.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This is the thing that bugged me about newer windows. I grew up with windows starting from 3.1 and each version had some fundamental improvement (removing ram limitations, WiFi integration, plug and play support, and just a bunch of shit) that would make you want to "upgrade" and even stinkers like ME still did somethings well. Now? Fuck me if I found anything better after 7 with the windows experience. I still boot up 7 in my living room for my media PC, and its to this day still better then 10 and certainty 11. In fact its the last windows device I even have now.

Like really, what is the rational in going to a new windows product in the last 10ish years? Broken features? Forced bullshit? Co pilot? Having the search be replaced by a Bing/co pilot eldritch horror? Its not security, windows has not been secure for a long while.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I agree with everything you're saying here besides security. Windows 10 and 11 have received hundreds if not thousands of additional security patches that 7 never will receive, which would be crucial to using the internet safely today.

However, 11 (and to a lesser extent 10) has horrific privacy invasive features built in, so it's very much a trade-off there, making Linux the only option to have both security and privacy.

[–] greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They're leaky like a sieve and we just saw a few weeks ago bitlocker has a built in backdoor.

Its broken by design.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I am in no way disagreeing that Windows 11 is a shit show, and wildly less secure than Linux, but realistically as bad as it is, it's still going to have less open and known vulnerabilities than Windows 7.

[–] greyscale@lemmy.grey.ooo 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

lol, for every vuln they patch, they add two more. One by accident, and one for the fed.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 days ago

They absolutely do put on government backdoors, but most people aren't going to be personally targeted by that, but they are likely to get hit with non-fed malware, like keyloggers to steal accounts, botnets, identity theft, etc.

Not that it justifies it, fuck Microsoft, but you get what I mean?

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

Patches are not in themselves security. You are conflating updates with safety, like they want you to. Neither 7 or 11 are secure in any way I would put my weight behind.

I was the only person I knew at the time with 2000. Everyone was either holding on to 98 because millennium sucked out when xp came they went right to that.