There are practical issues when lagging behind in Windows 10 updates.
There are practical issues when lagging behind in Windows 10 updates.
Some may know my strong dislike for Windows 10 and refuse to use it. Yet, the situation suggests a shift toward Windows 9 (8.1 Professional with a Windows 7 appearance). It offers all the benefits of previous versions while avoiding their weaknesses. Eventually, I’ll need to move forward. My trials with Ubuntu have been inconsistent so far. Support for Windows 9 is expected to end in 2024, giving me some time, but I’m still exploring alternatives. Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC stands out—it’s Windows 10 refined, without the clutter. No live tiles, minimal data collection, no unnecessary bloat. I’ve tried it on a spare machine and it performs flawlessly under all tests. Just need to reduce telemetry further, which is manageable. Shutup10 is a solid starting point. The GPO is also worth considering. However, there might be some drawbacks: it’s several versions behind in terms of development, aimed at older systems rather than cutting-edge features. The latest stable version I’ve found is 1809, which receives security updates up to that point. I wonder if anything beyond that—something more focused on security—might be missing compared to the newer releases (which seem to lean toward gaming).
LTSC has a few software issue, and some newer programs won't run, but if your testing says its fine. ALso ltsc isn't supported on newer hardware, so if you get a 11th gen intel system or zen 3 system there may be issues. There are some new security fixes in newer feature builds, but this really depends on your threat model, for a home user ltsc is fine.
You can trim Windows as much as you like, but why limit a modern system to what users can install? If someone suggests using UWP apps like Netflix, you’d likely refuse, saying you can’t install them because you’ve disabled that feature. Then there’s Messenger, then YourPhone, and so on—each time you try to save just a few bytes and features for the illusion of a cleaner system. The real goal isn’t simplicity; it’s gaining more choices, capabilities, and new experiences with newer versions.
Completely disagree. The main goal of a new operating system is improved driver support and bug corrections, along with better compatibility for older programs. An OS itself is merely a framework for running the software you choose. I don’t install Windows just to have it bundled with an unchangeable browser (they faced issues back then), a built-in file manager (same here), or a collection of poorly designed apps from a questionable store. The OS should focus on enabling the programs you actually need, not catering to some company’s assumptions about what you want. I’d still use Windows 7 if it was supported, but it isn’t, so I’m compelled to upgrade. Windows 7 was arguably the best OS Microsoft ever made, and its removal was driven by arbitrary decisions that pushed people toward Windows 10. What really bothers me about Windows 10 is its lack of trustworthiness. The constant push to embed spyware into every system is a clear sign that Windows 10 wasn’t an improvement over Windows 7 (or even Windows 8.1), but rather a strategy to extract more revenue from users. I firmly disagree with that stance, and the existence of Enterprise LTSC proves Microsoft could have developed a much stronger successor to Win7.
You're not grasping my point completely. I'm not referring to keeping software you don't want. Removing a store means you can't install UWP apps, which limits your ability to run any software you wish—especially if you prefer non-UWP options. I believe NVidia will eventually stop supporting their Whql drivers, leaving only the UWP version accessible. The same applies to Intel graphics drivers. Yes, you can challenge the system and block certain UWP tools, but that's a self-imposed action. You should be content with built-in support or preinstalled browsers. Without the Microsoft Store, finding alternative browsers would be much harder. A system packed with features offers more functionality out of the box, which is what makes it better. Unix terminals are powerful but complicated, and most people today avoid them.
Non-starter. LTSC doesn't have the store by default and IIRC cannot be installed, anyway. And there is no software that I need that is UWP only. If MS goes UWP-only for the future, that's the day I dump Windows entirely. I already have *nix on a few boxes as it is. You don't work in the professional world do you? The worse it is. The OS is there to support *my* needs, *my* choices, *my* desires, not some pinhead mid-level exec's idea of what he thinks I should be running. My decisions, not his. MS/Apple/Google are either currently embroile din anti-trust over stuff like this, or in the case of MS, have a long track record of running afoul of AT laws for this very reason. Arch linux, at least does it right, base OS, you can opt to choose to install anything, or nothing extra at all. But they leave it up to the user, as it should be.
I prefer working with software I choose myself. Mostly third-party tools, and I’m not sure how often I rely on built-in features. It’s not about the past when 20MB was expensive or every bit counted. I don’t mind using Edge or Explorer, nor do I feel obligated to run Groove. I don’t need them running; I have plenty of space and avoid unnecessary conflicts with tools I don’t want to use. Simply not using them is enough.