All posts by Tim Anderson

Running book review: The Art of Running Faster by Julian Goater and Don Melvin

I have mixed feelings about this book, first published in 2012. Most runners want to run faster. But how? Julian Goater, 1981 National Cross Country champion, shares his insights in this title. 

With a mixture of anecdote and specific training advice, he expands on six components of fitness: speed, suppleness, strength, stamina, skill and psychology. Some of his advice is uncontentious: do core strength training, for example, and do different types of training sessions including fartleks (short bursts of speed within a run), intervals, long runs and recovery runs. He is a enthusiast for cross country because “it gives you all-over, full-body fitness and resilience that will help you enormously when you run on quicker surfaces.”

All the above makes sense to me, but I am less sure about his advocacy of training twice a day. “To fit in the variety of training sessions you need, run twice a day most days,” he writes. This is not to get in more mileage overall, but more variety of short sessions.

Goater’s overall philosophy seems to me well summarised in a quote he references from Olympic gold medalist Sebastian Coe: “I’ve always felt that long, slow distance produces long, slow runners.” Goater feels that runners all too often get in plenty of miles but get too comfortable running at a steady pace and do not do enough speed work; and speed work, he says, must be above race pace otherwise it is useless. In fact it must be well above race pace. “To be effective, even your slowest speedwork should be done faster than your best pace for the distance below the one you are aiming for. If you are training for 10K, run your long sustained-speed repetitions at a faster pace than you can sustain for 5K,” he writes.

The author also states that “ideally, at least 80 percent of your running should be done at a comfortable cruising pace – but not just jogging.”  So he is not recommending speedwork above all else.

I did enjoy the book and especially Goater’s recollections of Coe, David Bedford, Steve Cram and other runners of his day. I think it could help me to run faster, if only thanks to his insistence on purposeful training and encouragement to put in more effort.

That said, I note the lack of references to scientific studies of the impact of different types of training. Rather, Goater relies on his own experience as a runner and a coach. 

A good book, but best read alongside other more rigorous training guides.

The Art of Running Faster by Julian Goater an Don Melvin (ISBN 978-0-7360-9550-1)

Running book review: Run your best Marathon by Sam Murphy

I like this book and recommend it, perhaps even for those not intending to run a marathon, or not yet.

Murphy is a runner and journalist, and takes the trouble to explain the science and to back up her statements with references to credible research. This is important because there are a surprising (to me) number of unresolved questions for those who want to optimize their running. Stretching, for example, before or after a run. “I’ve yet to find any evidence that stretching – of any kind – actually makes you run faster,” says Murphy. Does it reduce injury? “No clear effect,” she writes; but adds that there is evidence that if you think it helps, it does.

I would still call this matter of stretching unresolved. Julian Goater and Don Melvin, in their 2012 book The Art of Running Faster, have an entire chapter on the subject and say that “You do need to stretch – regularly … in my experience regular stretching is the key to avoiding injury.”

Murphy also has a down-to-earth section on how to choose trainers. “Many of the claims made about how shoes can protect or correct your feet are exaggerated or just plain wrong,” Murphy writes, with reference to research. She does confirm though that those super expensive carbon-fibre plate shoes are faster, but also notes some downsides. Comfort is the most important thing, she feels. I also like this great tip: when buying shoes, take out the insoles and stand on them. “Your whole foot should be within the boundary of the insole,” she says, otherwise you will have cramping which can be a disaster (it was for me).

The book takes the reader through the art and science of training, and then offers a set of training plans. She categorizes the plans as full throttle (training five days a week), steady state (mostly four days a week) and minimalist (mostly three days a week). In each category there are plans for experienced, and first timer. Runs are described as easy, tempo, marathon pace and so on; but you have to work out the exact pacing yourself, for which there is extensive guidance, as this depends on your capabilities and targets. 

These schedules are not as demanding as those in the classic book Advanced Marathoning by Pete Pfitzinger and Scott Douglas, nor is Murphy’s book as technical. Experienced runners would likely benefit more from the Pfitzinger and Douglas book; yet having read both, I still found Run your best Marathon useful.

Where this title wins though is in its approachability, down to earth style, and coverage of those small details which experienced runners seem just to know, but rarely explain. This is especially true in the second half of the book, about practicalities, body maintenance, how to choose a race, and nutrition/hydration. There is advice on exactly what to eat and drink, and how much, even down to tips like how to drink while running, without choking or coughing. There is also a complete checklist of what you might need for race day, though I am not sure about the bin liner she suggests for keeping dry before the race!

The book is very approachable and especially suitable for those contemplating their first marathon (as I am). Much of it applies to other distances as well, certainly longer runs of 10 miles or more, and there is so much general running advice that it may be worth a read even for those who have no intention of subjecting their bodies to a gruelling 26.2 mile race.

Run your best Marathon by Sam Murphy (Bloomsbury, ISBN 978-1-4729-8952-9)

Running book review: The Race against Time by Richard Askwith

I picked up this book, sub-titled “Adventures in late-life running”, because it seemed a good fit for my own situation, having taken up running as I approach retirement age.

It is not quite what I expected. Askwith’s first love is fell running, which he used to do intensively when younger. He recounts in the first chapter how he returned for a reunion fell run, now in his early sixties, and his reflections on the toll of age on his performance and that of his friends. 12 of them came for the reunion but only 4 actually ran, the others declaring themselves unfit for more than walks and socialising.

What we get in the subsequent chapters is a series of portraits of older runners, most much older than their sixties, backed up with interviews: why do they run in old age, how do they train, what is their story?

There are also interviews with experts on the subject of old age and fitness, and the whole book is punctuated with Askwith’s reflections on aging, mortality, and a few of his own recent experiences of running.

Curiously this is a book which I enjoyed less as it went on. Askwith’s constant self-deprecation becomes tiresome, and he seems almost unaware of the frustrating contradictions which he presents. How much should you train? Not too much and focus on HIIT (high intensity interval training) according to an interview with Peter Herbert. – you can read more about his approach here. Yet we also hear from the amazing Tommy Hughes a world record (for age) marathon runner and how he runs 20 miles a day in training. Or by contrast Angela Copson, who according to the book hardly trained at all for the 2007 London Marathon, other than running alongside her husband riding a bike, but achieved under four hours as a sixty year old woman.

It is all fairly confusing if you come to the book looking for advice on how to run well as an older person; and in fact you should look elsewhere for that kind of advice.

On the other hand, Askwith does put in the hard work of going out and interviewing numerous interesting older runners and for that, the book is well worth a read.

https://amzn.to/3LGn44d

Running and Plantar Fasciitis: so many questions

I started running nearly two years ago and until recently have been injury-free. In February I purchased some new running shoes, similar I thought to ones I had already. The first time I wore them I had some numbness in my left foot but put it down to wearing in. I wore them twice more; the second time they felt better, the third time I was training intensively and it was a disaster. I ran fast but was in pain walking home, mainly in my left foot.

Never again did I wear those shoes; but what had happened? I did some research and discovered that while the shoes I had bought were well rated in general, they were known to have a narrow toe box. Ouch.

I thought that having ditched the shoes all would be well. I continued to run and found that I got a bit of pain to begin with after which it felt fine. Unfortunately matters did not improve; the pain got worse, persisted longer, and I began to have issues walking as well. I realised I had a serious problem, from a running perspective at least. I suspected a thing called Plantar Fasciitis (misnamed because generally not an inflammation) which causes pain on the inside of your heel, where the plantar fascia, a strong piece of connective tissue, joins the heel.

I purchased orthotic insoles which helped to releive pain walking. I started cycling more, in order to keep fit while running less. And I also did a ton of research, discovering to my alarm that Plantar Fasciitis is notorious for lingering for months or even years; and that there appears to be no consensus about how to treat it.

It is a small problem in the context of many worse things that can happen but seeing my plans for a summer of running perhaps in tatters was not a good feeling.

The nadir for me was approximately one month after the injury. I attempted a 5K parkrun and just after 1.5K experienced such intense pain that I abandoned the run and limped to the bus stop. This was almost exactly one month after the injury began.

Plantar Fasciitis: things I learned

This is a common injury mainly affecting two groups of people: runners, and people who are on their feet a lot at work. It is somewhat more common in females but I am a typical sufferer being an older person who has ramped up their running relatively quickly.

While it is easy to diagnose likely plantar fasciitis, knowing exactly what is going on requires an MRI scan (I have not had one). I wanted to discover how to treat it and when I could get back to running; and discovered instead that neither question is easy to answer. In fact, I was surprised how much variation and contradiction there is out there.

Note: none of what follows is advice.

There seem to be two divergent approaches, one of which is focused on support, the argument being that resting the foot and wearing footwear that has heel cushioning and firm arch support will allow the foot to heal.

The other is focused on strengthening, the idea being that the problem occurs because of weakness in the foot and leg. Supporting the foot with insoles tends to make it weaker rather than stronger.

Regarding running with plantar fasciitis, there are arguments for not running until it is completely healed, or that it is OK to run provided the pain is only moderate and that it is no worse the next morning.

The risk of not running is that one loses fitness, though this can be mitigated by other types of activity such as cycling and swimming. The risk of running is that it could make the injury worse.

There are certain things though which are widely agreed. One is that the plantar fascia is just one part of a complex and wonderful system which includes toes, ankle, calves and glutes.

Until now I had taken my ability to walk and run for granted. I have always been a fast walker and assumed that my feet and legs would look after themselves. I now realise that they deserve some love and attention.

Although there is no consensus regarding orthotic insoles, there is reasonable agreement that stretching and strengthening exercises do speed healing.

How I have been treating my plantar fasciitis

Again, this is not advice, only a record of my own experience. I felt instinctively more drawn to the arguments for strengthening rather than support. I read every article and forum thread I could find, with particular interest in reports from others on what had worked for them. I even ventured into the hellhole of YouTube which of course has a million videos all promising quick relief – but it is always worth reading the comments.

I found the insoles did help early on, making walking less painful and running less risky, but resolved to wean myself off them as early as possible.

I obtained some minamalist barefoot-style shoes from Vivobarefoot. It was not just this post from the vendor; I saw other reports saying they were beneficial. Others said they made it worse. In general this is a big subject and merits a separate post; however note that I am not running in these shoes, only wearing them for day to day use. It took some adjustment but I find them comfortable.

I collected some exercises and did them intensively. They take about 25 minutes and I do them three or four times a day. They include:

  • Toe exercises. The big toe is part of the windlass system which includes the planter fascia.
  • Calf stretching exercises.
  • Glute strengthening exercises.
  • Using a resistance band to strengthen the toes and foot.

At first I thought nothing was changing. Three weeks later though, I noticed that I was much improved. I no longer found the first steps in the morning painful. I could walk almost normally. I even tried a tentative run without insoles and it went OK. I resolved not to run with pain higher than a 2 (on a 0-10 scale) and have followed it.

I am two months on from the injury now. I cannot say it is fully healed, but it is now mild and I am runnning almost as normal. I no longer use the insoles. I am keeping going with the exercises though; I do not know which of them is working, but something is helping. Or perhaps it would have got better anyway; it is never easy to be sure.

Some references

NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) clinical knowledge summary for plantar fasciitis. Recommends resting the foot, not walking barefoot, shoes with “good arch support and cushioned heels”, weight loss, symptomatic relief with an ice pack. Regarding insoles, states that “foot orthoses are widely recommended on the basis that they benefit foot posture and aid fascia healing. However, there is little evidence to support this.”

5 methods to manage plantar fasciitis – based on research though with limitations. Inconclusive but questions the benefits of strength training. Also found that custom-made insoles (much more expensive) are no more effective than off the shelf (cheap).

Detailed look at plantar fasciitis, what it is and how to treat it, from American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. States that “more than 90% of patients achieve symptomatic relief with 3-6 months of conservative treatment.” Advises that “stretching of the gastrocnemius muscle is a mainstay of treatment of PF.” Positive about insoles stating that “both prefabricated and custom-fitted orthotics have been shown to reduce pain and improve function in the short term with few risks or side effects” though note “short term.”

Can you run with Plantar Fasciitis – I quite like this thoughtful piece though it is inconclusive regarding the question posed in the title. Also quotes research which states, “At the moment there is limited evidence upon which to base clinical practice.”

Fixing a .NET P/Invoke issue on Apple Silicon – including a tangle with Xcode

I have a bridge platform (yes the game) written in C# which I am gradually improving. Like many bridge applications it makes use of the open source double dummy solver (DDS) by Bo Haglund and Soren Hein.

My own project started out on Windows and is deployed to Linux (on Azure) but I now develop it mostly on a Mac with Visual Studio Code. The DDS library is cross-platform and I have compiled it for Windows, Linux and Mac – I had some issues with a dependency, described here, which taught me a lot about the Linux app service on Azure, among other things.

Unfortunately though the library has never worked with C# on the Mac – until today that is. I could compile it successfully with Xcode, it worked with its own test application dtest, but not from C#. This weekend I decided to investigate and see if I could fix it.

I have an Xcode project which includes both dtest and the DDS library, which is configured as a dynamic library. What I wanted to do was to debug the C++ code from my .NET application. For this purpose I did not use the ASP.Net bridge platform but a simple command line wrapper for DDS which I wrote some time back as a utility. It uses the same .NET wrapper DLL for DDS as the bridge platform. The problem I had was that when the application called a function from the DDS native library, it printed: Memory::GetPtr 0 vs. 0 and then quit.

The error from my .NET wrapper

I am not all that familiar with Xcode and do not often code in C++ so debugging this was a bit of an adventure. In Xcode, I went to Product – Scheme – Edit Scheme, checked Debug executable under Info, and then selected the .NET application which is called ddscs.

Adding the .NET application as the executable for debugging.

I also had to add an argument under Arguments passed on Launch, so that my application would exercise the library.

Then I could go to Product – Run and success, I could step through the C++ code called by my .NET application. I could see that the marshalling was working fine.

Stepping through the C++ code in Xcode

Now I could see where my error message came from:

The source of my error message.

So how to fix it? The problem was that DDS sets how much memory it allows itself to use and it was set to zero. I looked at the dtest application and noticed this line of code:

SetResources(options.memoryMB, options.numThreads);

This is closely related to another DDS function called SetMaxThreads. I looked at the docs for DDS and found this remark:

The number of threads is automatically configured by DDS on Windows, taking into account the number of processor cores and available memory. The number of threads can be influenced using by calling SetMaxThreads. This function should probably always be called on Linux/Mac, with a zero argument for auto­ configuration.

“Probably” huh! So I added this to my C# wrapper, using something I have not used before, a static constructor. It just called SetMaxThreads(0) via P/Invoke.

Everything started working. Like so many programming issues, simple when one has figured out the problem!

Amazon Linux 2023: designed to be disposable

Amazon Linux 2023 is the default for Linux VMs on AWS EC2 (Elastic Compute Cloud). Should you use it? It is a DevOps choice; the main reason why you might use it is that it feels like playing safe. AWS support will understand it, it should be performance-optimised for EC2; it should work smoothly with AWS services.

Amazon Linux 2 was released in June 2018 and was the latest production version until March 2023, by which time it was very out of date. Based on CentOS 7, it was pretty standard and you could easily use additional repositories such as EPEL (Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux). It is easy to keep up to date with sudo yum update. However there is no in-place upgrade.

Amazon Linux 2023 is different in character. It was released in March 2023 and the idea is to have a major release every 2 years, and to support each release for 5 years. It does not support EPEL or repositories other than Amazon’s own. The docs say:

At this time, there are no additional repositories that can be added to AL2023. This might change in the future.

The docs also document how to add an external repository so it is a bit confusing. You can also compile your own rpms and install that way; but if you do, keeping them up to date is down to you.

The key to why this is though is in a thing AWS calls deterministic upgrades. Each version, including minor versions, is locked to a specific repository. You can upgrade to a new release but it has to be specified. This is what I got today from my installation on Hyper-V:

Amazon Linux 2023 offering a new release

The command dnf check-release-update looks for a new release and tells you how to upgrade to it, but does not do so by default.

The reason, the docs explain, is that:

With AL2023, you can ensure consistency between package versions and updates across your environment. You can also ensure consistency for multiple instances of the same Amazon Machine Image (AMI). With the deterministic upgrades through versioned repositories feature, which is turned on by default, you can apply updates based on a schedule that meets your specific needs.

The idea is that if you have a fleet of Amazon Linux 2023 instances they all work the same. This is ideal for automation. The environment is predictable.

It is not ideal though if you have, say, one server, or a few servers doing different things, and you want to run them for a long time and keep them up to date. This will work, but the operating system is designed to be disposable. In fact, the docs say:

To apply both security and bug fixes to an AL2023 instance, update the DNF configuration. Alternatively, launch a newer AL2023 instance.

The bolding is mine; but if you have automation so that a new instance can be fired up configured as you want it, launching a new instance is just as logical as updating an existing one, and arguably safer.

Amazon Linux 2023 on Hyper-V

Amazon Linux 2023 came out in March 2023, somewhat late as it was originally called Amazon Linux 2022. It took even longer to provide images for running it outside AWS, but these did eventually arrive – but only for VMWare and KVM, even though old Amazon Linux 2 does have a Hyper-V image.

Update: Hyper-V is now officially supported making this post obsolete but it may be of interest!

I wanted to try out AL 2023 and it makes sense to do that locally rather than spend money on EC2; but my server runs Windows Hyper-V. Migrating images between hypervisors is nothing new so I gave it a try.

  • I used the KVM image here (or the version that was available at the time).
  • I used the qemu disk image utility to convert the .qcow2 KVM disk image to .vhdx format. I installed qemu-img by installing QUEMU for Windows but not enabling the hypervisor itself.
  • I used the seed.iso technique to initialise the VM with an ssh key and a user with sudo rights. I found it helpful to consult the cloud-init documentation linked from that page for this.
  • In Hyper-V I created a new Generation 1 VM with 4GB RAM and set it to boot from converted drive, plus seed.iso in the virtual DVD drive. Started it up and it worked.
Amazon Linux 2023 running on Hyper-V

I guess I should add the warning that installing on Hyper-V is not supported by AWS; on the other hand, installing locally has official limitations anyway. Even if you install on KVM the notes state that the KVM guest agent is not packaged or supported, VM hibernation is not supports, VM migration is not supported, passthrough of any device is not supported and so on.

What about the Hyper-V integration drivers? Note that “Linux Integration Services has been added to the Linux kernel and is updated for new releases.” Running lsmod shows that the essentials are there:

The Hyper-V modules are in the kernel in Amazon Linux 2023

Networking worked for me without resorting to a legacy network card emulation.

This exercise also taught me about the different philosophy in Amazon Linux 2023 versus Amazon Linux 2. That will be the subject of another post.

New Outlook confusion as connection to Exchange Online or Business Basic mailboxes blocked “due to the license provided by your work or school”

What Microsoft gives with one hand, it removes with the other; or so it seemed for users of paid Exchange Online accounts when the company said that “for years, Windows has offered the Mail and Calendar apps for all to use. Now Windows is bringing innovative features and configurations of the Microsoft Outlook app and Outlook.com to all consumers using Windows – at no extra cost, with more to come”.

That post in September 2023 does not mention a significant difference that was introduced with this new Outlook. It is all to do with licensing. Historically, Outlook was always the email client for Exchange, and this is now true for Exchange Online, the email component of Microsoft 365. Microsoft’s various 365 plans for business are differentiated in part by whether or not users purchase a subscription to the desktop Office applications. Presuming though that the user had some sort of license for Outlook, whether from a 365 plan, or from a standalone purchase of Office, they could add their Exchange Online email account to Outlook, even if that particular account was part of a plan that did not include desktop Outlook.

Some executive at Microsoft must have thought about this and decided that with Outlook becoming free for everyone, this would not do. Therefore a special check was added to Outlook: if an account is a business account that does not come with a desktop license for Outlook, block it. The consequence was that users upgrading or trying to add such an account saw the message:

“This account is not supported in Outlook for Windows due to the license provided by your work or school. Try to login with another account or go to Outlook on the web.”

The official solution was to upgrade those accounts to one that includes desktop Outlook. That means at least Microsoft 365 Business Standard at $12.50 per month. By contract, Microsoft 365 Business Basic is $6.00 per month and Exchange Online Plan 1 just $4.00 per month.

Just occasionally Microsoft makes arbitrary and shockingly bad decisons and this was one of them. What was wrong with it? A few things:

  • Administrators of 365 business tenancies were given no warning of the change
  • Exchange Online is supposedly still an email server. Email is an internet standard – though there are already standards issues with Exchange Online such as the requirement for OAuth authentication and SMTP disabled by default. See Mozilla’s support note for Thunderbird, for example. However, Exchange Online accounts still worked with other mail clients such as Apple Mail and eM Client; only Outlook now added this licensing requirement.
  • The new Outlook connected OK to free accounts such as Microsoft’s Outlook.com and to other email services. It was bewildering that a Microsoft email client would connect fine to other services both free and paid, but not to Microsoft’s own paid email service.
  • The description of the Exchange Online service states that “Integration with Outlook means they’ll enjoy a rich, familiar email experience with offline access.” This functionality was removed, meaning a significant downgrade of the service without notification or price reduction.
  • Some organisations have large numbers of Exchange Online accounts – expecting them suddenly to change all the plans to another costing triple the amount, to retain functionality they had before, is not reasonable.
Image from Exchange Online product description showing how it highlights Outlook integration as one of its features
The product description for Exchange Online highlights Outlook integration as one of its features

Users did the only thing they can do in these circumstances and made a public fuss. This long and confusing thread was the result, with comments such as:

The takeaway is: You can no longer add a mail account in the new Outlook if said mail account doesn’t come with its OWN Outlook (apps) license. This is ridiculous beyond understanding. Unacceptable to the point that if they don’t fix this, I’ll cancel BOTH Exchange licenses and move over to Google Business with my domains.

There was also a well reasoned post in Microsoft Feedback observing, among other things, that “At no point is Business Basic singled out as a web-only product in any of the Microsoft Terms or Licensing documents.” 

The somewhat good news is that Microsoft has backtracked, a bit. This month, over 4 months after the problem appeared, the company posted its statement on “How licensing works for work and school accounts in the new Outlook for Windows.” The company now says that there will be a “capability change in the new Outlook for Windows”, rolled out from the start of this month, following which a licensed version of Outlook will work with Exchange Online, Business Basic and similar accounts, provided that an account with a desktop license is set as the primary account. This includes consumer accounts:

“If you have a Business Standard account (which includes a license for desktop apps) added as your primary account, that license will apply, and you can now add any secondary email accounts regardless of licensing status (e.g. Business Basic). This also applies to personal accounts with a Microsoft 365 Personal or Family, as these plans include the license rights to the Microsoft 365 applications for desktop. Once one of these accounts is set as the primary account, you can add Business Basic, E1 or similar accounts as secondary accounts.”

This is a substantial improvement and removes most but not all of the sting of these changes.

What is an operating system for? A friend’s Windows 11 rant shows disconnect between vendors and users

What is an operating system? The traditional definition is something like, the system software that manages computer hardware and provides services for applications.

This definition does not describe what you get though when you install an “operating system” such as macOS, Windows, Android or ChromeOS – or more likely, receive hardware with it pre-installed. What you get is an operating system (OS) plus a ton of stuff that can only be described as applications. In practice, the reach of what we call an operating system has extended over the years. Even in the early days, an OS would come with utilities, including a command line, a command line editor, perhaps a C compiler, file management tools and so on. Then there was a change when pre-installed graphical user interfaces arrived. Windows came with Notepad, Calculator, Write and Paint.

What is a commercial operating system today? We can add to the traditional definition at least the following:

  • A vehicle for advertising
  • A means of lock-in
  • A vehicle for data collection

On Windows, advertising is everything from the pre-installed trials, to the nagging to upgrade OneDrive, to the mysterious appearance of Candy Crush on the Start menu.

The lock-in comes via the ecosystem. Apple is worse than Windows for this in that more of its applications work only on Apple operating systems. On Windows though Microsoft hardly has to bother since a huge legacy of Windows-only applications keeps users from changing, especially in business.

Data collection is via near-enforced login and telemetry. An Apple ID is not required for macOS but it is strongly encouraged and necessary for the App Store. A Microsoft or Entra ID account is not required to use Windows, but the setup points you strongly in that direction.

Is any of this good for the user? A friend is disappointed with Windows 11 – mainly because it is less familiar than Windows 10. His central points are that Microsoft makes irritating changes that disrespect the learning users have invested in Windows, and has left behind the notion of the operating system as a blank canvas waiting for applications to make it useful.

Personally I put up with Windows 11; it is not that different, though there are a few things that I particularly dislike:

  • The taskbar icons in the centre. I routinely move them to the left. Settings – Personalisation – Taskbar – Taskbar behaviors – Taskbar alignment, no registry editing required. This single change makes Windows 11 feel much more familiar, and it is better since left-aligned icons are easier to target.
  • The Start menu. This was great in Windows 95 and improved up until Windows 7. Windows 8 replaced it for … reasons. Windows 10 reinvented it but badly. I have trained myself always to click All apps as a second step after clicking Start. Click on a letter for the letter menu, select a letter, start the app. It works reliably, unlike Search which is a usability disaster when what you want is to start an application.
  • The File Explorer. You right click a file, and instead of a single menu of options, there are three sets of options, one in a row of icons, one in a mysterious subset of options, and one under Show more options. A poor user interface for a common task.

There are other things, of course. I always turn off the distracting Widgets on the taskbar. I always show as many of the “additional System tray icons” as I can, with the exception of consumer Teams. I always open Edge, reflect on the cheap ugly mess that is the default home page, and set about disabling it.

These annoyances are mainly design errors by Microsoft rather than an a direct consequence of the changing role of the operating system; yet they would be impossible without that change.

Imagine for a moment if Windows were optimised for installing and running applications. Oddly, Windows 8 (which most hated for more or less the same reasons my friend cites for disliking Windows 11) did have that vision. Install from the Store, with clean setup and easy removal. Run full-screen with no distractions. Before you say it, yes there were issues, the UI was not good enough, the apps were not there, we missed multiple overlapping windows, and more. There was a good concept in there though.

Windows 11 rant: “I replaced Win 11 with Win 10. It was like walking back into my house”

A friend purchased a Windows 11 laptop and this was his reaction, slightly edited. It caused me some reflection on what is an operating system, which I have posted separately. I also note: Windows 10 goes out of support in October 2025.


“I recently bought a Win 11 laptop. I was stunned. I must apologise for what follows, but it actually made me quite angry to realise that the Chief Product Manager at Microsoft clearly has NO understanding of ‘opportunity costs’, thus wasting millions of our ‘person-hours’ worldwide.

“For many years I worked in health research, where we realised a decade or two ago that something doesn’t just have to give better results to be worth implementing. It’s got to be SUFFICIENTLY better to offset the cost of implementing the change. If you start something new that ‘works better’ but in doing so, fail to consider the additional costs involved in everyone changing how they do things, professional and patient, to not just know but understand how & why the new thing is better it is very easy to end up with everything working worse than before. NEW must be > (OLD + Opportunity Costs). Ideally a lot greater, if you want to bring people with you. This isn’t rocket science, not anymore.

“I get that most IT correspondents are professionals used to having to plough through new Operating Manuals (pdf, sure) every two years, but out here in Userland I am far too busy doing interesting stuff with my computer & applications. Over a few years I learnt where the main knobs & levers of Win 10 are. And haven’t thought about it since. So, for Microsoft to carelessly move everything, just because they believe the new setup will be quicker/easier/more efficient for me is not only staggeringly rude, but stupid.

“Consider: It probably only took me a few hundred hours of use of Win 10 to learn where all the OS stuff was to the point where it was automatic. Since then the OS stuff has usually required no conscious input at all, like riding a bike. Some things might not be easy to find, but once you know, you know. Then along comes Win 11, and all this stuff is a pain in the arse again, nothing is where it used to be. So I don’t CARE if, in theory, the new arrangements are easier to use ONCE YOU KNOW THEM, my point is, why should I, and (hundreds of) millions of other Windows users, have to re-learn all that sh*t?

“IT’S JUST AN OPERATING SYSTEM! (Can someone at Microsoft put up posters?)

“I’m not interested in it! It’s the environment in which the things I AM interested in – applications – video editors, DAWs, office apps etc.- live. Don’t f*ck with it. How would you feel if suddenly you had to learn to speak & walk again, just because someone thought they knew a better way to do these things?

“And consider the hundreds of hundreds of millions of person hours you are WASTING, as we have to re-learn where things are? Double-click when before we had to single click. Settings moved somewhere completely different. Even where on the screen to look: Does Microsoft not employ a single behavioural psychologist who could tell them how much time (and attention) is wasted when you move something that was always bottom left to top middle?

“And then, the final straw: I found that most of these maddening ‘I’m bored, let’s change grass from to green to blue’ ‘improvements’ can be reversed, just by editing the registry. It was only on my fifth edit, I realised what was going on. The old ways of doing things, that I’d invested serious time in learning about to the point where they were automatic, were STILL THERE! It’s just that someone Microsoft couldn’t even raise their eyes from Tiktok (or whatever was distracting them), to add a few lines of code, to make the previous ways of operating, accessible via a menu. Remember them? You put the user in charge? Of their own computer? The very thought…

“At that point I realised that Microsoft’s institutional memory had, ironically, forgotten why Bill Gates got so rich in the first place. Let’s recall – IBM agreed to let him licence rather than sell his OS for their new, pathetically under-powered ‘Personal Computer’, because they thought it would be a small market. I mean, who would want to use a desktop PC , when they could use a terminal to access a mainframe with a brain the size of a planet (sorry, Doug)? History tells us they then discovered, too late, that the Mk.1 Human Being prefers under-powered personal computers over high-powered mainframes, for the same reason we all prefer living in small chaotic houses to living in large, well-organised institutions.

“So I replaced Win 11 with Win 10. It was like walking back into my house. Subsequently, in a typical working day I no longer had to expend any further conscious thought on operating the Operating System – because I learnt how to do that years ago. And then got back to the interesting stuff.”