Insights from a Veteran Engineer
Retired Microsoft engineer Dave Plummer has entered the ongoing discourse regarding the perceived shortcomings of Windows, proposing an intriguing concept: the introduction of a hardcore mode designed to strip away some of the more superfluous features of the operating system. Plummer’s tenure at Microsoft coincided with a pivotal period for Windows, spanning the final days of Windows NT 3.5x and the launch of Windows NT 4. Although it has been years since he actively contributed to the Windows codebase, remnants of his work likely persist, a testament to Microsoft’s commitment to backward compatibility.
Plummer’s critiques center on two primary themes: the need for a hardcore mode that eliminates the excesses introduced for less technical users, and a call for greater transparency alongside a departure from the prevailing “Microsoft knows best” mentality that has characterized recent iterations of the OS.
The notion of a hardcore mode resonates with many enthusiasts and engineers who often find themselves navigating through a myriad of unnecessary user-interface elements and unsolicited suggestions. Plummer advocates for “a first-class system-wide setting that flips the operating characteristics of the OS from safe and chatty to deterministic and terse.” This would mean no more nudges, no unsolicited recommendations, and a more streamlined search experience.
Control is another critical aspect Plummer emphasizes, advocating for a centralized location for settings management. He criticizes the current system, which often requires users to embark on a “scavenger hunt” to locate specific settings. Once identified, these settings should clearly communicate their intended changes, eliminating the need for what Plummer refers to as “spelunking” through the Windows Registry to discern the underlying mechanics.
“The tool change should grow some teeth,” Plummer asserts. “If you flag yourself as a power user, then the OS takes you at your word and stops second-guessing you constantly.”
Telemetry, a contentious issue among Windows users, is another area where Plummer sees room for improvement. While acknowledging the necessity of telemetry for diagnosing system failures, he argues for “radical transparency and control.” He envisions a system where every packet sent on the user’s behalf is documented with a straightforward explanation and a link to relevant resources, allowing users to mute specific telemetry categories without the risk of automatic reactivation during updates.
Updates themselves are a frequent source of frustration for users, as they can lead to unexpected changes in behavior or system instability. Plummer suggests that the solution lies not in a one-size-fits-all fix but in establishing a new social contract. This would entail eliminating surprise reboots and implementing automatic rollbacks following health checks.
While Plummer refrains from directly addressing Microsoft’s recent push to integrate AI capabilities throughout the OS, he expresses concern that the company may be crossing a line. He believes that the focus has shifted from educating users about the operating system’s capabilities to transforming it into a sales channel for Microsoft’s other products. “And that’s corrosive in a way that telemetry will never be,” he warns.
Plummer critiques Windows’ tendency to recommend Edge after a user has chosen a different browser, labeling it as “disrespect.” He argues that when the Start Menu displays sponsored applications, it effectively places a price on the user’s attention within their own machine.
Despite his criticisms, Plummer acknowledges the strengths of Windows, praising the kernel for its maturity and performance, the storage stack as world-class, and the drive ecosystem as an unparalleled achievement of collaboration. He also commends the Windows Subsystem for Linux and the new Terminal application.
Ultimately, it is the additional features and functionalities layered onto the operating system that have left Plummer feeling discontented. “So, does Windows suck?” he poses rhetorically. “Only when it forgets who it’s working for…”
