We got our first look at Windows 11 this week courtesy to an unplanned breach on a Chinese server. While we may argue the morality and practicality of downloading Windows 11 and checking it out for yourself (for the record, you shouldn’t), one thing is certain: the new version of Windows will appear a lot sleeker than Windows 10.
Long lists of web applications and complicated menus have been phased out in favor of rounded edges and widgets. There’s only one problem: none of these features are required by Windows. It’s always a delicate balancing act to come out with a new edition of a programme. If you make too many changes, the software will become unintelligible. If you don’t change anything, there’s no incentive to update at all.
IT Company won’t pass judgement on Windows 11’s functioning until I have a chance to test it out. However, based on the images, it appears like Microsoft is attempting to emulate the MacOS look. My colleague Henry T. Casey pointed out that the style is more like ChromeOS, but the premise remains the same: Microsoft believes Windows should be more modern and minimalist.
The problem is that, to my knowledge, Windows customers do not desire an operating system that looks like an Apple shop. Windows has never been known for its attractive user interface. Windows, on the other hand, shines in two areas: simple navigation and extensive under-the-hood choices.
The more Microsoft attempts to minimize these features, the more it drifts from the core of the Windows experience. The Start menu, the taskbar, the streamlined desktop shortcut, and even the clock in the bottom-right corner were all introduced in Windows 95. Since Windows 95, the basic visual framework of Windows has remained unchanged (with a few notable digressions).
If you put a person born in 2010 in front of a Windows 95 PC, they should be able to run applications, save documents, and find files rather quickly. (They could be perplexed as to why they have to use Netscape to access the Internet and why a talking paperclip is guiding them through Microsoft Word.)
Microsoft, on the other hand, did a fantastic job designing Windows 95. The firm set out to build the most understandable and easy operating system imaginable, and it succeeded right away. In general, the finest versions of Windows so far have been those that have kept faithful to the architecture of Windows 95. Windows XP, Windows 7, and Windows 10 are among them. Conversely, the most troublesome Windows versions to date have been those that have attempted to reinvent the wheel. Windows ME, Windows Vista, and Windows 8 are among them.
Of all, it’s not as if Microsoft could have simply stopped at Windows 95. OSes require regular upgrades for a variety of reasons, including usability, hardware compatibility, software optimization, and security. Furthermore, certain Windows innovations, like as the search bar and the graphical Documents folder, have made the OS truly better with time. Connecting to the Internet, adding a second display, connecting a printer, and taking a screenshot are all easier now than they were in 1995.
Nonetheless, I believe it is fair to state that Windows 95 was a forerunner in terms of the present look and functioning of the Windows operating system. Over the years, this method has required minor adjustments, but never a complete overhaul.
