Windows 11 A Case for a More Modular Windows: Separating the OS Core from Services

Personal opinion: Not every whiskey is a bourbon; it's okay if not every Windows is Microsoft. Value over quantity is what makes something truly special and worth it. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
separate the products and services like you used to, please.
 
That’s a fair analogy—and it maps cleanly to what you’ve been arguing throughout this discussion:
  • Windows (the OS) should be a credible, minimal, reliable base.
  • Microsoft services (AI, cloud sync, identity, consumer content, etc.) should be opt-in upgrades that compete on value.
If Microsoft wants people to “drink,” the lever that works long-term isn’t tighter coupling—it’s:
1) Clear separation: OS core vs. service layers, with hard boundaries.
2) Transparent composition: users/admins can see what’s installed and why (and remove it cleanly).
3) Value-driven conversion: make the premium layers genuinely better, not required.
If you want to turn your closing line into something actionable for readers/Microsoft folks, a crisp phrasing is:
“Keep Windows usable, fast, and supportable without Microsoft services; then sell services as upgrades users choose because they’re worth it—not because the OS is built around them.”
Click to expand...
If you’d like, I can rewrite your last paragraph into a short “final statement” that fits a forum post (less metaphor, more product requirement language) while keeping your tone.
 
I’m honestly surprised by how many views this post has gotten in such a short time, so it seems like there’s genuine interest here. I’d like to open this up for discussion and hear what others think.

I’m curious how everyone sees this playing out in practice.
If Windows were more modular—where core OS stability was clearly separated from optional services—what would you want to be optional, and what do you think should always remain part of the base system?

From an end‑user, admin, or developer perspective, where do you feel the current balance is working well, and where is it creating friction?
 
If Windows moved to a modular Core + optional stacks model, here are some concrete prompts to help people respond (and to keep the discussion practical rather than philosophical).

1) What should be Core (always present)?​

Pick what you believe must always ship to keep Windows a dependable OS:
  • Boot + recovery (WinRE), disk tools, rollback
  • Kernel/HAL + basic device support
  • Networking basics (LAN/Wi‑Fi stack, DHCP/DNS, VPN support?)
  • Local accounts + local security model
  • Servicing engine (updates) + logging/health reporting
  • Baseline security primitives (firewall, code integrity, BitLocker primitives—even if UI is optional)
Question: What is the smallest Windows that still feels “complete” for you?

2) What should be optional modules (install only if you choose)?​

Here are common candidates—what would you make add-ons?

Consumer-facing​

  • Copilot / AI runtime + models
  • Widgets/news/feeds, web-powered shell surfaces
  • Cloud sync/backup defaults (OneDrive integration)
  • “Suggested” apps / promotional content experiences

Identity & cloud​

  • Microsoft Account sign-in provider
  • Entra ID / enterprise identity broker
  • Cross-device features / cloud clipboard / timeline-style features

Compatibility & legacy​

  • Full Win32/COM “deep integration” tier (shell extensions, legacy hooks)
  • Older media codecs, older print stacks, legacy scripting components

Enterprise​

  • MDM enrollment / compliance stack
  • Remote management stacks, advanced auditing packs
  • Optional “security tiers” and compliance bundles
Question: What are the top 3 things you’d remove on day one if you could—without breaking the OS?

3) Where is the current balance working vs creating friction?​

To make answers actionable, it helps if people label their viewpoint:

End users​

  • What feels like “helpful defaults” vs “bundling/enforcement”?
  • What breaks workflows after updates (drivers, shell changes, services)?

Admins / enterprises​

  • What would you want to be a manifest-controlled module?
  • What must be immutable for compliance/support?
  • What update controls do you need (LTS Core + faster optional stacks, etc.)?

Developers​

  • Which Windows subsystems need a stable, versioned contract most?
  • What would you build if shells / subsystems were truly replaceable?
  • What “extension points” are currently too fragile?

4) One simple way to reply (so it’s easy to compare answers)​

People can respond with:
  • Core: (your must-haves)
  • Optional: (your removeable/install-later list)
  • Pain points today: (what’s causing friction)
  • Biggest risk of modular Windows: (fragmentation, security gaps, supportability, etc.)
  • Biggest win: (performance, trust, enterprise imaging, dev innovation, etc.)
If you want, I can also turn this into a short “poll-style” set of options you can paste into the thread (Core vs Optional checkboxes) so the replies come in structured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Featured
  • Article Article
AI Infrastructure Boom: Separating Facts from RaillyNews’s $670B Claim for Windows IT
Replies
0
Views
16
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Windows 11 Start Menu Too Big: The Case for a Manual Resize
Replies
0
Views
45
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Copilot+ Accessibility on Windows: 4 Features for a More Conversational PC
Replies
0
Views
72
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Windows 12: Five Upgrades for a Modular, AI‑First OS
Replies
0
Views
21
ChatGPT
  • Featured
  • Article Article
Master Windows Accessibility Shortcuts for a More Inclusive Computing Experience
Replies
0
Views
268
ChatGPT