Some of the changes don't really make sense, like dragging a file over the task bar application icons to activate it for drag and drop, why would they remove that?

It's either a feature you use, or its hidden and does no harm, its baffling why they would remove it.

I can only assume they rewrote the taskbar from scratch and decided to MVP it.

The HN (and related) communities really need to get outside their bubbles once in awhile. Why does Microsoft keep adding features that are unpopular with people who read ghacks.net? Maybe because people who read ghacks.net are a tiny segment of the population and are not representative of most Windows users.

Most users do not like changes that add very little value despite requiring they make regular investments in skills they already invested in and seek to derive value from.

Microsoft, and they are by no means alone in this, do that ALL THE TIME. And the most consistent reason they have provided is some benefit to them. They imply it means value for users, but that is a secondary rationalization.

Source: Many normie type windows users asking me, "Why?" ...often in tandem with, "How?"

Edit: Regarding the tile menu, the normies often just type something now, then pin it so they do not have to navigate a less familiar and arguably less interface again later.

Well you have your sources and I have mine. But my experience is completely the opposite of yours.

Which very strongly suggests significant percentages of users are impacted. It is far from a monoculture out there.

Right now, we are seeing a lot of features and the UX in particular, being dumbed down. That is impacting a lot of people and it really is not helping too many people, except the big companies wanting a common experience across mobile, desktop, etc...

Overall, it is a growing net loss, unnecessary.

I don't think a lot of users are impacted. Most of the "dumbing down" is actually useful feature improvements and simplifications, and most people who care are a vocal minority.

Unironically, yes.

When was the last time Microsoft did something user centric? Microsoft is a (very successful) enterprise software and (aspirational) advertising and data harvesting company. There is not really any thought given to users, and almost every change from Win 95 forward has been worse for users. This has not hindered their business and has probably improved it.

If you want stuff for the good of the user, get a mac. I don't mean this as a judgement per se, it's just different business models. I use Office 365 for my business and imo it's the best available choice, but it's definitely not built for its users.

Windows increments from 95 to Win 7 seemed to improve things (not everything, amazing stasis in some places). I like that the UI was more consistent, more attention to things like Fitt's law, fewer secret gestures and better keyboard/mouse parity on the OS/GUI aspects than Mac. Since 7, seems downhill.

So to answer your question: "Since Win 7 came out".

I don’t even know if they cared then. 7 only existed because Vista was an unusable nightmare for the first year and they had to do some damage control. They then followed 7 up with 8, an operating system where all early impressions and user testing indicated users would be bewildered and confused and they still pressed forward with it.

You could argue 3.11, 95,98,2000 releases were good, but beyond that Windows has been up and down with their releases.

For debate class, I could argue those releases were good, and 2000 improved on NT4/95, but I can't argue from belief.

Neither can I, but they were solid enough. A lot of people like to talk about how good XP was, but that is rose colored glasses and ignoring where OSX was at the same time, which, while not without issues, was a much more modern operating system.

Never mind the security issues of XP pre SP2. Antivirus software became commercial products because XP was so insecure.

The Xbox division is pretty user centric / user friendly these days, but the Windows and Office side has never seemed to care if the consumer liked their product, just that they tolerated it. Makes sense. They don’t sell to consumers. They sell to OEMs and Enterprises. In fact, I can’t think of a time the company has cared about consumers or really even the consumer experience beyond it being good enough for users to tolerate and not demand something different.

"Microsoft wants to increase usage of Edge, Bing and other Microsoft properties. Increased usage increases Microsoft's revenue at the same time, as advertising revenue increases with usage. The features may also keep users in Microsoft's ecosystem of services and applications longer."

Is Microsoft headed back into anti-trust territory?

Have they not seen the investigations and complaints against Google and Apple for similar actions?

Pretty simple, the features are added from a business strategy viewpoint first, over a product/customer viewpoint.

Just shows what the structure is of the teams running each of these departments. That person with the MBA with great credentials but not much experience leads it, or can override the decisions of the others in the team.

A better question may be why should MSFT be more "end user centric" with Windows? The vast majority of their Windows users didn't have a choice of which operating system to use. The OS was picked by their employer, school, parents, IT department or software compatibility requirements (gaming).

This is starting to look like a browser/chrome OS... What does the desktop have to do with web search/file search...