Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
It is strange to me that people are re-discovering this today, in 2026. Microsoft has always been half-baked, even in the 80s and 90s. Heck, my parents basically raised me (20+ years ago) by running a business fixing problems with Microsoft products for their clients.
I was able to take a 25 year break from Microsoft, from 2000 to 2025. Yet I was drawn back in because my son wanted to play Minecraft. This was the worst account process of any system ever invented, as far as I can tell. Plus in 2025 I had some interesting clients that are large corporations that use Microsoft as their core IT practice. The escape to the relative simplicity and consistency of AWS interfaces, from MS land, was the best part of the IT experience with that client. (With how much I've moaned and complained about AWS over the years, that last sentence is the most damning thing I can possibly say about Microsoft's products.)
Just pirate it. Minecraft is really easy to pirate if you don't want to play multiplayer, or want to play on pirate-compatible servers (which is one boolean flag in the official server configuration file and doesn't require a pirated server).

Make sure to get Java Edition. The other one is just an ad-riddden slopfest where they also ban you if you say swear words.

loading story #49172907
loading story #49170602
This is basically my experience.

I switched to Mac with the Intel change around...2006 maybe? Converted my entire family.

I personally switched to various flavors of linux around 2016-2017 because I wanted more hardware options.

Eventually, my son got into gaming and eventually we let him get an Alienware laptop maybe 2-3 years ago. Then my wife had to get one for work this year. It's like nothing has improved in 20 years.

what a shame; I only played minecraft when it was an alpha, and the .jar file ran just fine on my linux machine at the time.
There were problems, but they were problems of a distinct and different kind.

Back in the early 1990s you'd get Microsoft Office from the store, as a box containing 10 floppy disks. And they had to put a lot of effort into testing it, because patching was impossible. And of course it was fully offline. Perpetually licensed, with paid upgrades.

The problems were instead things like "this notionally multi-user OS is just a single-user OS with a decorative login screen" and "any application can crash the entire OS" and "spreadsheets auto-run macro viruses" and things like that.

'always online' has created a whole new set of buggy from a lot of companies. For example cyberpunk is NOW a playable game. Launch date was a very mixed bag. 'fix it after launch' ugh.
loading story #49172321
I remember that back in the mid 80s the Application group was not happy about the quality of work so someone circulated a memo about software quality, which I read from Steven Sinorfsky’s blogs. Adding NT on top of it, I’d say they definitely treat software quality a lot more serious than today.

I think they completely let it go when they laid off the testers and let users pay $$ to be testers, starting from 2010s perhaps. Maybe earlier.

I guess it’s surprising because how ubiquitous their products are. You’d expect them to be of better quality considering everyone is using MS software one way or another.
Their products/services are ubiquitous not because they are good but because they got where they are today by abusing monopoly power and shady tactics.

On the business side, with M365, they use lock-in tactics and extremely aggressive bundle pricing. The only competitor is Google Workspace, and it's missing features you get bundled with something like an E5 license. So your choice becomes: just pay Microsoft $60/user/month and get Identity, Office, Intranet, MDM, EDR, DLP, ZTNA, the works. Or, buy Google Workspace and then also buy Slack, Okta, JamF (or Jumpcloud or similar), some ZTNA product, etc. and you are now at double or more the price of an E5 license.

On the consumer side with Windows, they secured their monopoly via internet explorer, and predatory OEM contracts to prevent machines being sold with anything else. Now Windows is just an ad-delivery network disguised as an OS. People don't leave Windows because its still, through those shady backroom deals, the default OS on every off the shelf PC, and because of existing software.

Microsoft has zero incentive to build a good product now, they already won. People use it because they have to not because they want to.

loading story #49173800
loading story #49171213
loading story #49170681
I suppose the argument is in reverse. They are so ubiquitous, they don’t really have to be good anymore to capture the market.
loading story #49169956
loading story #49170110
>considering everyone is using MS software one way or another.

I don't think I've used a MS product in at least a decade. At least that I was aware of.

Edit: did some research and I have used LinkedIn. Other than that, nothing.

loading story #49171545
Product quality has nothing to do with ubiquity. Its all about shady business deals that locks you into products where the migration cost is much higher.
Microsoft products are no longer ubiquitous. That's an early 2010s view. In 2026 most clients are running Android, followed by iOS, followed by Mac, and use Google Docs for their office work. Windows is only used on a per-company basis. If your company uses it it uses it, otherwise it doesn't.
loading story #49170723
loading story #49170621
> ... considering everyone is using MS software one way or another.

This used to be the case when Apple was in dire straits and MS abused their monopoly position to gain 95% of browsers market share. Grim days.

But those days are thankfully long done and there are plenty of people who are completely Microsoft-free.

The one thing people are using one way or another is Linux, because it's now in just about everything. Even those in the Apple ecosystem, with an iPhone and Mac computers, very probably have a Linux router and Linux TV at home.

The number of devices in the world running one version of Linux or another outnumber Windows devices by something like 10 to 1. Maybe more.

Microsoft is a despicable company producing turds since forever. I hate them and the crap they produce with a passion since the DOS days.

As the saying goes: the day Microsoft shall produce something that doesn't suck is the day they'll start selling vacuum cleaners.

loading story #49170366
They're ubiquitous because everyone else fucked up during the 80's and 90's charging too much for everything. MS was affordable. It's really just Apple gaining economy of scale by manufacturing in China and Linux being free while being higher quality that make MS look bad.

Also MS stuff has always been slop. Hate their business practices too. But without Linux we'd be choosing between MS, Apple and Oracle Solaris or something...

Since some time around 2024, the problems started to grow way more numerous than they already were; the workarounds started to be disallowed; and more broken software started to be pushed as necessary for basic functionality. People were adapted to a certain level of breakage, but are seeing a different one.

Last time I remember them doing something similar was on the last days of XP / earlier Vista time. But it wasn't so bad at the time.

This is why Microsoft is good, there is an entire industry around fixing their nonsense. They are being a job creator!
A very very limited defense of Microsoft and their whole "support vendor" "ecosystem": if you are selling a complex product, there is value in having a robust knowledge base of known problems with known solutions, and a huge base of people who know all the right workflows. A buggier product that's well known and understood is maybe even preferable to a less buggy product with poorly understood failure modes. At least back in the heyday of the NT kernel times, it seemed like there were "MVP"s or whatever that knew the right way to do everything.

(Not that I would know, I don't touch Microsoft's shit with a 10-foot-pole)

I remember windows 2000 being pretty rock solid. I used it as my gaming os for years while folks struggled with windows me and windows xp (IIRC, xp did eventually become pretty good)
XP and 7 were only good because it was based off of 2000/NT.
loading story #49169564
> I remember windows 2000 being pretty rock solid.

Windows NT (including Windows 2000) was considered to be a workstation OS by Microsoft. From Windows XP on, the NT-based Windows operating systems (except for the server ones) were targeted to consumers.

I would argue that Microsoft had a solid run for some years in the middle where their software was pretty good quality. I think it started with Windows 2000 and certainly lasted through the XP era. Windows 7 was pretty decent too. Their operating system was straight up trash before win2k and has been in steady decline for some years now. It doesn't surprise me that younger people are only now (re-)discovering that Microsoft operating systems are bad.
> Microsoft has always been half-baked, even in the 80s and 90s. Heck, my parents basically raised me (20+ years ago) by running a business fixing problems with Microsoft products for their clients.

I don’t see that as support for the claim that Microsoft’s products were half-baked in the 80s and 90s.

If Linux had sufficient market penetration in small business, I bet you could run a successful business fixing problems with Linux products, even today.

(It may be a bit of a stretch but you could even argue Amazon is making serious money supporting big companies with their Linux problems)

counterpoint: in my experience, the low level Windows OS primitives are less buggy than low level MacOS primitives.

They're weird to this unix-head, but generally not as buggy as in MacOS.

But I don't think it contradicts your point. This is just a rare exception to the true general rule.

Windows 2000,XP,7 may not have been perfect, but they were leagues better than the state of the art today.
That isn't true. Microsoft has made some genuinely good software over the years.
Like what
loading story #49170910
loading story #49171358
loading story #49170751
It really became a problem only with Windows RT attempting to merge mobile OS with desktop. All the non-sensical UX compromises are still from that.

Later they abandoned consumerware after losing the mobile space but that's a different story. Microsoft isn't really a consumer software company any more so there's no point judging it on that basis.

microslop before invention of slop