Isn't it funny - when Vista came out, many people wanted pc to look like XP, Windows 7 to look like Vista (or XP), W8 to look like W7, W10 (mostly to look like W7, some like W8 (I do not like round corners - practically an oxymoron)), W11 to look like W10 etc.
Do people not see a sort of pattern - some people just seem to refuse to accept change.
How many posts do we see of tools that emulate older versions that keep inconveniently breaking as W11 gets updates?
In the end, is it worth it?
Look at the example of GNU/Linux. Everything is more customizable, and that's not a problem for anyone.
The problem with the change is absolutely not user-created, but Microsoft policy.
The problem is not I want like this version, now like this one... No, the problem is that inevitably, when there is no choice, there are unhappy people. It's totally logical.
And if not, of course it's worth it. Your final remark on stability is wrong, because very often, stability problems are not related to third-party tools. Personally, I have a more stable and faster system than most people. Yet most people don't even guess it's Windows, so much I modify my installation. And besides, you just need to know a little about how Windows works to realize that it's
almost never a DLL injection, an additional menu, a disabled service or a modification in the registry that causes the problem. What slows down and destabilizes Windows in general are the enormous antiviruses (Avast...), the large proprietary software (iTunes, Adobe, CyberLink) and of course certain tools included natively in Windows (Microsoft account, SuperFetch, UWP plat-forme, ...).
The only instability problems I encounter concern the Microsoft account (Microsoft store in particular). Yet this is exactly what Microsoft has been proud of for several years. Like what.
