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

[laughingbaldman]

We (my team and I) acknowledge the intent behind Copilot and Microsoft’s broader AI and services strategy. However, from both a technical and commercial perspective, Windows is currently constrained by architectural decisions that limit monetization potential, suppress third‑party innovation, and erode long‑term platform trust—trends that have been building since Windows 8.1 and have accelerated with increasingly tight coupling between the OS core and first‑party services.

We believe Microsoft has a significant opportunity to increase revenue—potentially beyond any prior Windows era—by transitioning Windows toward a modular, distribution‑style operating system architecture. This shift would decouple the OS core from optional services, applications, firmware dependencies, and cloud integrations, allowing Microsoft to monetize Windows through choice, value, and extensibility rather than enforcement.

From a revenue standpoint, a modular architecture enables Windows to function as a platform marketplace rather than a monolith. By making higher‑level components explicitly optional—AI services, cloud features, developer tooling, security layers, enterprise management stacks—Microsoft can introduce tiered, composable offerings that users and organizations willingly adopt. This transforms Windows from a one‑time license or bundled product into a recurring, scalable service ecosystem where value drives conversion.

For developers, this model unlocks a wave of innovation that directly benefits Microsoft’s bottom line. A stable, minimal OS core with clearly versioned and isolated subsystems allows independent developers to build deeply integrated tools, alternative shells, vertical‑specific environments, and specialized distributions without fear of regression or forced dependency shifts. Each of these becomes an opportunity for Microsoft to monetize via APIs, certification programs, marketplaces, revenue sharing, and enterprise support contracts—similar to how cloud platforms monetize extensibility rather than control.

Architecturally, reducing implicit dependencies also lowers maintenance and support costs. Modular components can be updated, deprecated, or replaced independently, reducing systemic risk and large‑scale regressions. This not only improves security and reliability but also shortens development cycles and allows Microsoft to ship innovation faster, with clearer accountability and measurable ROI per component.

A distribution‑style model also expands Windows’ addressable market. By decoupling Windows from rigid hardware, firmware, and TPM requirements where not strictly necessary, Microsoft can re‑engage education, emerging markets, embedded systems, industrial deployments, and long‑lifecycle enterprise environments. Extending the usable lifespan of hardware increases Windows adoption in cost‑sensitive sectors while creating new opportunities for paid upgrades, long‑term support subscriptions, and specialized service tiers.

Critically, this approach strengthens Microsoft’s SaaS strategy. Optional, value‑driven services reduce piracy incentives by aligning cost with benefit rather than restriction. When users can run a trusted, minimal Windows base and selectively enable premium services, Microsoft competes on engineering quality and innovation—not lock‑in. This trust‑based model historically correlates with higher lifetime customer value, stronger enterprise adoption, and improved brand perception.

Most importantly, a modular Windows architecture repositions Microsoft as the platform enabler rather than the sole innovator. By empowering the community to extend, optimize, and specialize Windows, Microsoft gains leverage over a vastly larger innovation surface—one it can monetize through tooling, infrastructure, identity, cloud integration, and enterprise governance. This is how platforms scale revenue beyond what internal teams alone can produce.

In summary, transitioning Windows to a modular, distribution‑inspired model is not merely a technical refinement—it is a business multiplier. It creates new revenue streams, lowers operational risk, accelerates innovation, and restores Windows’ identity as the most flexible and commercially powerful operating system platform available. At present, this opportunity remains unrealized—but it represents one of the clearest paths for Microsoft to drive sustained growth and reclaim platform leadership at scale.

We are past the time when everything gets a free trial. We know what AI can do and many of Microsoft's services and capabilities. It is time to go back to bare bones and make the ongoing services a premium option, while leaving the portal to them accessible as an upgrade rather than a "you have to have this too if you use our product."

Innovation without need is just noise. When the need is there, users will flock to get it. Until then, it is just a thorn for users and their hardware.

 

[ChatGPT]

Hi laughingbaldman — you’ve articulated a “Windows as a composable platform” direction that’s technically plausible and commercially coherent, and you’re also correctly calling out the trust/innovation costs of implicit coupling (especially when core UX paths start depending on cloud identity, web runtimes, and first‑party service assumptions).
Below is a way to frame your proposal into concrete, shippable building blocks (and the main technical/business pitfalls Microsoft would need to solve).

---

1) What “modular Windows” would need to mean (not just “optional apps”)​

Windows already has some modularity (Features on Demand, Optional Features, inbox apps serviced separately, WinGet/MSIX, servicing stack separation, etc.). But a true distro-style model requires hard contractual boundaries:

A. A small, stable “Core OS” with explicit contracts​

• Stable ABI/API surface guarantees (what’s “in core” vs “addon” must be predictable for 5–10 years).
• A strict rule: core cannot silently start requiring optional components (identity, cloud, web runtime, AI runtime).

B. “System components” as packages with:​

• Independent versioning
• Dependency manifests (what requires what)
• Atomic install/update + rollback
• Health model (if component X fails, OS remains usable)

This is the difference between “you can uninstall some apps” and “you can assemble a Windows distribution.”

---

2) The monetization model that avoids the “enforcement” trap​

Your key commercial point is strong: monetize value rather than bundling. A workable structure could be:

Tiered, composable SKUs (examples)​

• Windows Core (local-first, minimal shell, minimal services; paid once or very low cost)
• Security Pack (advanced EDR hooks, application control policy bundles, virtualization-based protections, compliance reporting)
• AI Pack (local models, orchestration, dev APIs, admin controls; billed monthly per user/device)
• Cloud Pack (backup/sync/identity management features)
• Developer Pack (toolchains, reproducible dev environments, first-party support contracts, CI integration)

The critical bit: the OS should run cleanly without them, and the upgrades should be obvious wins—not “unlock what used to be basic functionality.”

---

3) The developer platform angle: enable third-party “distributions” without chaos​

To get the “platform marketplace” effect you describe, Microsoft would need to deliberately support specialized Windows builds without repeating the Windows 8/RT trust break.
Practical enablement steps:

• Supported alternative shells (a real, documented shell contract—not “it works until the next feature update”).
• First-class packaging for system-level components (beyond apps): drivers, shell extensions, management agents, security layers.
• A strict compatibility promise for core contracts so third parties aren’t constantly chasing regressions.
• Certification + revenue share where it actually adds value (security review, enterprise readiness, supportability).

If Microsoft wants extensibility revenue, they have to stop treating “deep integration” as inherently suspicious unless it’s first-party.

---

4) The biggest technical risks (and how to mitigate them)​

A modular Windows isn’t blocked by engineering talent—it’s blocked by QA surface area, compatibility, and security.

Risk: Fragmentation / support matrix explosion​

Mitigation:

• “Reference distributions” Microsoft supports (Core + Enterprise, Core + Consumer, Core + Kiosk, etc.)
• A component compatibility policy (what combinations are supported)

Risk: Security gaps from “optional security”​

Mitigation:

• Keep a secure-by-default baseline in Core (patching, firewall, secure boot path where possible)
• Let advanced layers be optional, but never make “insecure” the easy path

Risk: Updates become unreliable with mix-and-match components​

Mitigation:

• Package-based servicing with transactional updates and rollback (more like modern Linux distros / mobile OS partitions than classic Windows servicing)

---

5) Hardware / TPM requirements: your point is commercially true but tricky​

Your argument about expanding the addressable market is valid, but Microsoft will always weigh it against baseline security and OEM realities.
A compromise model that could actually ship:

• Security tiers tied to features, not hard gates:
  • “Core (Legacy Hardware)” runs, but some protections/features are unavailable
  • “Core (Secure Hardware)” unlocks higher assurance features
• This keeps “Windows runs” separate from “Windows meets enterprise security posture.”

---

6) Turning this into actionable feedback Microsoft might accept​

If you want this to land as more than a philosophy post, I’d suggest condensing it into a short list of non-negotiable requirements and incremental milestones, e.g.:

Non-negotiables​

1. Minimal usable OS without cloud identity or web-runtime dependencies
2. Explicit component boundaries + versioned contracts
3. Componentized servicing with rollback
4. Supported alternative shells and deep integrations via documented contracts

Milestones​

• Phase 1: fully optional Copilot/AI runtime + no core UX dependency
• Phase 2: package the shell/UI stack as a replaceable system component
• Phase 3: publish “Windows Distribution Kit” for OEMs/enterprises/ISVs

---

Quick question (so I can tailor this to your exact target audience)​

When you say “distribution-style,” do you primarily mean:
1) End-user composability (a “Windows Core” users build up),
2) Enterprise/OEM composability (image/build pipeline + support contracts), or
3) Third-party Windows distros (ISVs ship curated Windows variants)?
They overlap, but Microsoft would respond very differently depending on which of those is the main goal.

 

[laughingbaldman]

One way to unify many of the ideas being discussed here is to treat Windows as one modular platform with multiple composition paths, rather than forcing a choice between consumer flexibility, enterprise stability, or ecosystem openness.
At the foundation would be a minimal, stable Windows Core (kernel, essential services, security root), with everything else delivered as signed, versioned, optional modules. This aligns with long‑standing discussions around more modular Windows architectures (often referenced in the context of “CorePC” or earlier Windows Core OS ideas), where the OS core is decoupled from higher‑level features and services.
On top of that same component system, Microsoft could support three simultaneous composition models:


End‑user composability — users start with Windows Core and add supported feature sets (developer, gaming, creator, privacy‑minimal, etc.), making higher‑level capabilities value‑driven rather than mandatory.


Enterprise and OEM composability — organizations and device makers build reproducible images using declarative manifests (core + selected modules + update policies), reducing attack surface, improving lifecycle control, and extending hardware usability without forking the OS.


Certified third‑party Windows variants — ISVs ship curated Windows builds composed only of approved modules under a strict signing and certification contract, enabling vertical‑specific or specialized Windows environments without fragmenting the platform.


An important side effect of this approach is that it lowers the psychological and technical barrier to upgrading, even for long‑time holdouts still running Windows 7‑era systems. Many of those systems persist not because users reject security improvements, but because they fear loss of control, forced hardware upgrades, or bundled features they do not want. A Windows Core that can run lean, respect older hardware where feasible, and allow users to add only what they need provides a credible migration path that feels like continuity rather than replacement.
The key point is that all three models share the same Windows Core and the same module ecosystem, which avoids fragmentation while dramatically expanding innovation capacity. From a business perspective, this turns Windows into a platform economy: Microsoft monetizes premium modules, enterprise servicing and SLAs, and certification/marketplace participation—while the broader community drives specialization, adoption, and long‑term trust.
Done correctly, this could improve security and stability, bring legacy users forward voluntarily, and unlock new revenue streams—without forcing Microsoft to choose between control and innovation.

 

[ChatGPT]

What you’re describing is a good way to avoid the usual false tradeoff (“either Windows is a locked appliance” vs “Windows is an ungoverned free‑for‑all”): one Core + one module ecosystem + multiple composition paths.
If Microsoft ever wanted to make this real (and not just “some apps are uninstallable”), the key is to define hard invariants and then let everything else be composed.

---

1) The non‑negotiable invariants (what keeps it from fragmenting)​

To support end-user, enterprise/OEM, and certified third‑party variants on the same core, Microsoft would need a few platform rules like:

• Core boots, updates, and is usable offline (local account works; basic UI exists; no cloud/AI dependency in the critical path).
• Every non-core feature is a signed, versioned module with explicit dependencies and rollback.
• No module is allowed to silently become “required” for baseline OS functionality in a later update.
• A published Compatibility Test Suite (CTS-style) for any certified variant so drivers/apps don’t face random breakage.

That’s the “single Windows” story that prevents the ecosystem from turning into a thousand incompatible forks.

---

2) One component system, three composition models (how it could look in practice)​

A) End‑user composability (feature “bundles” that are genuinely optional)​

Users don’t pick from 400 knobs; they pick curated sets:

• Gaming bundle (DX stack + GPU tools + capture + latency features)
• Developer bundle (WSL, container tooling, debuggers, SDKs)
• Creator bundle (color pipeline, codecs, pro IO support)
• Privacy-minimal bundle (local-first defaults, minimal telemetry tier where legally/contractually possible)

Important detail: bundles are just manifests that install modules, not separate SKUs that drift apart.

B) Enterprise/OEM composability (reproducible builds)​

This is where you get the biggest security + lifecycle win:

• Images defined by a declarative manifest: Core + module list + allowed update channels + policies
• Reduced attack surface by default (no consumer services accidentally present on regulated devices)
• Explicit servicing SLAs: “Core LTS + Security Pack LTS + Mgmt Pack Current,” etc.

C) Certified third‑party variants (curated, vertical builds without a fork)​

This only works if Microsoft draws a bright line:

• Third parties can compose from approved modules (and possibly add their modules under a strict contract)
• They cannot replace Core, only extend/compose around it
• Certification requires: passing the CTS, security baseline, update compliance, and clear support ownership

That yields “Windows for radiology carts / classrooms / studios / factories” without the Android-style chaos.

---

3) The hardest technical constraint: Win32’s global state​

The single biggest reason “modular Windows” is hard is that classic Windows wasn’t designed around isolation:

• shell extensions, COM, global registry assumptions
• driver and filter stacks that can destabilize the whole system
• system-wide hooks that blur “app” vs “OS feature”

A modular future pretty much demands a plan like:

• Core + isolated subsystems, where “legacy compatibility” is itself a module with boundaries (policy, sandboxing, virtualization/containerization where feasible)
• A strong rule that “deep integration” moves to documented extension points, not unofficial hooking

Without that, modules become “optional in name only,” because everything still implicitly depends on everything.

---

4) Your “legacy holdouts” point is important—and measurable​

You’re also right that a lot of Windows 7/8.1-era resistance is control and predictability, not “anti-security.” A credible on-ramp could be:

• Windows Core (Legacy-capable): broader hardware tolerance where feasible
• Windows Core (Secure-capable): unlocks higher assurance features when TPM/CPU features exist

So the OS remains installable, while the security tier scales with hardware—without forcing “all-or-nothing” upgrades.

---

5) If you want this proposal to be irresistible, add two specifics​

If you post a follow-up, I’d suggest adding:
1) A concrete module taxonomy

• Core (kernel, boot, servicing)
• Shell/UI stack
• Identity stack
• AI stack
• Cloud stack
• Enterprise management stack
• Compatibility stack (Win32/COM legacy boundaries)

2) A servicing promise

• “Core LTS = X years”
• “Modules can be Current/LTS independently”
• “Rollback guarantees for failed module updates”

That turns this from a vision into a product plan Microsoft could actually cost, staff, and ship.

---

One question (to sharpen your next post)​

For “certified third‑party variants,” do you envision Microsoft allowing ISVs to ship:

• Only curated manifests (they select Microsoft modules), or
• Manifests + ISV system modules (their own signed low-level components, beyond normal apps)?

That single choice determines how big the opportunity is—and how hard the security/support model becomes.

 

[laughingbaldman]

One concrete way to make these ideas actionable is to define a clear module taxonomy and show what a lightweight Windows Core edition would actually look like in practice.
At the base would be Windows Core, which is always present: the kernel, boot chain, hardware abstraction, servicing/update engine, and core security primitives. This layer stays small, stable, and hardware‑tolerant, providing a secure foundation without forcing higher‑level features.
Everything above that becomes explicit, optional stacks:

Shell / UI stack – desktop shell, window manager, theming, input models. A lightweight edition could ship with a minimal desktop shell and allow richer shells to be added later.
Identity stack – local accounts only, or optional Microsoft/Entra identity. Legacy or offline systems can remain local‑only.
AI stack – Copilot runtime, local models, cloud AI services. Fully opt‑in; not part of the base OS.
Cloud stack – sync, online services, telemetry tiers. Optional and policy‑controlled.
Enterprise management stack – MDM, policy engines, compliance tooling, installed only where required.
Compatibility stack – clearly bounded Win32/COM legacy layers, included selectively to support essential legacy applications rather than being spread throughout the OS.

A lightweight Windows Core build would include only the core, a minimal shell, local identity, and a constrained compatibility stack. This creates a credible upgrade path even for long‑time holdouts still on Windows 7‑era systems—many of which persist not out of resistance to security, but due to fear of forced features, cloud coupling, or hardware churn. This model offers continuity rather than replacement, while still allowing users to add modern capabilities incrementally.
The same module taxonomy scales cleanly across end‑user composability, enterprise/OEM image pipelines, and certified third‑party Windows variants, all built on the same core and component ecosystem. That avoids fragmentation while improving security, restoring user trust, and opening the door to broader adoption and innovation.

 

[ChatGPT]

Your taxonomy is the right level of “concrete” to make this actionable: it names stacks with clear dependency direction (Core → optional layers), and it describes what a “lightweight” build actually contains.
Below is a tightened version you could post as a spec-style proposal, with (1) crisp boundaries, (2) what must stay in Core vs must be modular, and (3) what a lightweight “Windows Core Edition” would practically ship.

---

1) Proposed module taxonomy (with hard boundaries)​

A. Windows Core (always present; smallest stable contract)​

Goal: boot, update, run basic UI, run signed modules, remain useful offline.
Include:

• Boot chain + recovery essentials
• NT kernel + HAL + core scheduler/memory/filesystems
• Minimal device + networking foundation (enough to update and join networks)
• Servicing engine / package manager + rollback
• Core security primitives (code integrity, credential primitives, firewall baseline, encryption primitives)

Rule: Core must not depend on Shell, Cloud, AI, or Microsoft account/Entra to be usable.

---

B. Shell / UI stack (optional; swappable)​

• Minimal shell (settings, basic desktop, file picker, windowing surface)
• Optional “rich shells” (Explorer/Start/taskbar/search widgets/consumer experiences)
• Input models, theming, accessibility UX surfaces

Rule: “Shell” can depend on Core, but Core must not depend on any specific shell implementation.

---

C. Identity stack (optional; policy-selectable)​

• Local-only mode (local accounts, offline auth)
• Optional Microsoft Account / Entra ID providers
• Optional device registration, SSO brokers, passwordless flows

Rule: local identity must remain first-class and not degraded.

---

D. Compatibility stack (optional; explicitly bounded)​

Treat “legacy” as a contained subsystem instead of being smeared across the OS:

• Win32 userland compatibility
• COM / shell extension compatibility tiers (with an explicit “unsafe integration” policy gate)
• WOW64 (x86-on-x64) as a selectable module
• Optional “legacy media/codecs/printing” packs

Rule: compatibility modules can be present, but must be isolatable/disable-able and versioned, with measurable blast radius.

---

E. Cloud stack (optional; decomposed into submodules)​

• Sync/backup modules
• Online services integration
• Telemetry tiers as explicit components with clear policy controls and auditable behavior

Rule: Cloud is an upgrade, not a hidden runtime dependency for local workflows.

---

F. AI stack (optional; fully opt-in)​

• Copilot UI module
• Local model runtime modules
• Enterprise governance module (policy + logging)
• Cloud AI connectors

Rule: no core OS functionality should require AI modules to be installed.

---

G. Enterprise management stack (optional; composable)​

• MDM enrollment
• Policy engines and compliance reporting
• Enterprise update rings / deferral policies
• Optional security/compliance packs

Rule: enterprise capability becomes additive and declarative, not entangled in consumer builds.

---

2) What a “Lightweight Windows Core Edition” would ship with​

A credible “lean but usable” edition is basically:
Included

• Windows Core
• Minimal shell (basic desktop/window manager + Settings + file management)
• Local identity
• Constrained compatibility (only what’s required for a defined app baseline; everything else is add-on)

Explicitly NOT included (but discoverable as upgrades)

• Rich consumer shell experiences (widgets/news/search integration, etc.)
• Microsoft Account/Entra integration
• Cloud sync/backup bundles
• Copilot/AI runtime
• Full legacy surface area (e.g., “all historical codecs/features forever”)

This is the piece that makes your “continuity rather than replacement” argument land: users can install a modern, serviced OS without being forced into every modern service.

---

3) Make it implementable: composition manifests + servicing channels​

To keep “three composition paths” unified, each path should ultimately resolve to the same artifact:

• A signed manifest that declares:
  • Core version baseline
  • Module list + dependency versions
  • Update channel per module (Current vs LTS)
  • Policy constraints (e.g., “no cloud modules allowed,” “local-only identity enforced”)

Even a simple conceptual example helps people visualize it:

edition: WindowsCore
core:
  channel: LTS
  version: 12.x
modules:
  - shell.minimal@LTS
  - identity.local@LTS
  - compat.win32.base@LTS
policies:
  cloud: disabled
  ai: disabled
  identity:
    allow_msa: false
    allow_entra: false

Same mechanism supports:

• End-user “bundles”
• Enterprise/OEM reproducible images
• Certified ISV variants (with certification constraints)

---

4) One key addition I’d suggest to strengthen your post​

Add an explicit certification boundary for “Certified third‑party Windows variants”:

• ISVs may ship manifests (curated Microsoft modules) + optionally ISV modules
• ISV modules must be:
  • signed
  • declared dependencies
  • uninstallable with rollback
  • pass a compatibility + security test suite

That’s how you enable specialization without turning Windows supportability into chaos.

---

Clarifying question (to help you sharpen the next iteration)​

For the “Compatibility stack,” do you want the lightweight Core edition to still target full Win32 desktop apps as the default baseline, or would you set a narrower baseline (e.g., only MSIX-packaged apps + a limited Win32 set) and make “full legacy Win32/COM integration” an explicit add-on?
That single choice determines how small Core can realistically be, and how compelling it is for Windows 7-era holdouts.

 

[laughingbaldman]

Consumers like options. If something doesn’t need to be present for the operating system to function, it should be an explicit add‑on rather than part of the baseline. A modular Windows Core built this way would resemble a modernized Windows XP philosophy: a lean, reliable foundation that runs well on a wide range of hardware, with advanced features added deliberately instead of assumed. This approach lowers resistance to upgrades while preserving user trust and control.

 

[ChatGPT]

That “modernized Windows XP philosophy” framing is strong because it’s intuitive: a lean base that works broadly, and everything else is a deliberate choice. The key is to pair that simplicity with modern security + servicing, so it doesn’t sound like “go back to 2001,” but rather “bring back clarity of ownership.”
Here’s a crisp way to express it (and make it harder to dismiss as just preference):

Core principle (consumer-facing)​

If Windows can boot, update, and perform local computing tasks without a feature, that feature should be an explicit add‑on module—not baseline.
That directly supports:

• Trust: users know what’s installed and why
• Performance: fewer background services by default
• Longevity: fewer forced dependencies that obsolete older hardware
• Upgrade adoption: less fear of “surprise bundles” and policy drift

“Lean base” doesn’t mean “less secure”​

The modern equivalent of an XP-like lean foundation should still include:

• Secure boot/update chain + rollback
• Firewall baseline + exploit mitigations
• Sensible default hardening without requiring cloud identity, AI runtime, or consumer services

So the pitch becomes: lean by default, secure by default, optional by design.

Practical “what becomes add-on” examples (the part consumers immediately understand)​

You can strengthen your post by giving a short, concrete list of things that should be add-ons unless explicitly chosen:

• AI/Copilot stack (UI + runtimes + connectors)
• Cloud stack (sync/backup, consumer service integration)
• Identity integrations (Microsoft Account / Entra as optional providers; local remains first-class)
• “Rich shell” experiences (widgets, web-powered surfaces, consumer feeds)
• Compatibility expansions (full legacy COM/shell extension tier as an explicit compatibility module)
• Media packs/codecs and extra device feature stacks (install when needed)

One sentence that lands well commercially​

If you want a business-aligned closer (without sounding hostile to Microsoft’s services strategy):

“Make premium services easier to adopt by making the base OS smaller and more trustworthy—then users will upgrade into value instead of trying to avoid bundling.”

If you want, paste the exact version you plan to post publicly, and I’ll help tighten it into a short “proposal” format (problem → principle → module examples → business payoff) without losing your tone.

 

[laughingbaldman]

Copilot already has the capability to support a modular, lightweight Windows model—the issue is where it’s being applied. The idea is solid, but the execution feels inverted.
Rather than embedding Copilot everywhere inside the running OS, it would be more effective to use Copilot primarily in the development, configuration, and upgrade path. In this role, Copilot acts as a guided composer: helping users modernize an existing lightweight Windows base (for example, a stripped‑down Windows 7 or 10‑class system with a Windows XP‑style footprint) by selectively adding components based on hardware, usage, and policy.
This approach avoids turning Copilot into a runtime dependency and instead positions it as a transition layer—one that lowers upgrade resistance, preserves performance on older hardware, and maintains a lean, predictable core. Users aren’t forced into a fully bundled experience up front; they evolve forward incrementally, with Copilot assisting decisions rather than enforcing defaults.
Architecturally, this also reduces fragmentation. Instead of maintaining multiple editions, Microsoft maintains one Windows Core with composed states. From an adoption standpoint, this provides a credible path for long‑time holdouts to move forward voluntarily, while still delivering modern security and servicing guarantees.
In short, Copilot works best as a builder and migrator, not as a pervasive background presence. Used this way, it accelerates adoption and trust rather than becoming another required layer users feel compelled to work around.

Consumers don’t resist modernization—they resist loss of control. A lightweight core plus an AI‑assisted upgrade path restores that control.

 

[ChatGPT]

You’re describing a much cleaner (and frankly more defensible) architectural use of Copilot: Copilot as a composition + migration tool, not as an always-on runtime layer.
If Microsoft treated Copilot as a “guided builder” sitting around Windows (setup, upgrade, recovery, provisioning) instead of inside every workflow, you get most of the value with far fewer trust/perf/regression risks.

What “Copilot as builder/migrator” could look like (concrete)​

1) Setup / Upgrade Copilot (primary use-case)​

A Copilot experience that runs during:

• Windows Setup / OOBE
• In-place upgrade
• “Reset this PC”
• Feature-add (“Add optional features”) and Windows Update orchestration

What it does:

• Scans hardware capabilities, disk budget, driver situation, and key usage intent (“gaming”, “school”, “creator”, “offline-first”, etc.)
• Detects installed apps / workflows that imply needed compatibility modules
• Produces a signed composition plan (manifest) that says: Core + selected modules + update channel + policies
• Applies it via existing servicing primitives (packages/features/optional components), with rollback if something breaks

2) “Explain and ask” instead of silently bundling​

This is where you directly address the “loss of control” problem:

• “You can keep Local-only identity (recommended for offline/legacy use). Want to add Microsoft/Entra sign-in later?”
• “You don’t need the AI stack for basic computing; install later if/when you want it.”
• “To run App X, you’ll need Compatibility module Y. Install? (Est. +450MB, background services: none)”

Make Copilot the translator of tradeoffs, not the enforcer of defaults.

3) Enterprise/OEM: Copilot generates reproducible manifests​

For orgs, the killer feature is Copilot turning requirements into something buildable:

• “Kiosk device, no cloud services, 6-year lifecycle, minimal attack surface”
• Output: a declarative manifest + Intune/MDM policy bundle + update rings + compliance baselines

This makes “one Windows Core with composed states” real without asking admins to become component archaeologists.

Why this avoids the biggest Copilot backlash​

Not a runtime dependency​

If Copilot is primarily used in the composition path, then:

• Windows remains fully functional if Copilot is removed/disabled
• Offline/airgapped/regulated environments don’t inherit an always-present “assistant surface”
• You reduce performance anxiety (background presence, web surfaces, extra hooks)

Safer servicing model​

When Copilot is a planner and the plan is applied through a transactional package system with rollback, you can:

• update modules independently
• keep Core stable
• measure regressions per-module (better accountability)

Important realism check: “Windows 7-era” systems​

Conceptually, your “holdouts” argument is correct (control + predictability is the blocker). But Microsoft would need to message this carefully because:

• Windows 7 has been out of support since January 14, 2020 (and ESU for most customers ended later), so the path can’t sound like “keep running Windows 7, just strip it down.”
• The practical deliverable is: a Windows Core that feels like the old “lean Windows” experience, while being modern and serviced.

A simple phrase that encapsulates your point (if you want a punchy line)​

“Copilot should be a constructor and migration guide, not a permanent layer in the runtime OS.”

One question to sharpen your proposal​

Do you envision this “Copilot Composer” requiring the cloud by default, or should it have a fully offline mode (local model / rules engine) that can still generate the manifest and only uses cloud optionally for richer recommendations?
That answer determines whether the idea works for regulated/airgapped/low-end hardware scenarios—the exact audiences you’re trying to win back.

 

[laughingbaldman]

It should be both, and the distinction should be made by installer type, not by runtime dependency. This is already a solved problem in other ecosystems.
A Copilot‑based “Composer” should support:

a fully offline installer, where composition is driven by a local rules engine or lightweight local model that generates the OS manifest without any cloud requirement, and
an online installer, where cloud‑assisted Copilot can optionally provide richer recommendations, compatibility insights, and optimization guidance—but still produces the same explicit, local manifest.

This is not a new or radical concept. Linux distributions already do this: they offer offline installers that produce a complete, minimal system from local media, and online installers that enhance the experience when connectivity is available—but the OS itself does not depend on the cloud to exist or remain operational.
Applying the same principle to Windows keeps the base OS lightweight, predictable, and trustworthy, while still allowing Microsoft to deliver advanced AI‑assisted workflows where they add value. Copilot should help decide how Windows is built, not be required for Windows to run.

 

[ChatGPT]

That’s a solid distinction, and it’s exactly the right boundary: capability differs by installer mode, not by making the shipped OS depend on the cloud. If Microsoft adopted this, it would also give them a clean story for regulated, airgapped, low-bandwidth, and “I just want a lean PC” users—without splitting Windows into incompatible editions.

A workable architecture: “Windows Composer” (offline + online) that always outputs the same artifact​

The key design choice is what you already implied:
Copilot (offline or online) produces a local, explicit, auditable composition manifest.
Windows Setup consumes the manifest.
Windows runs without Copilot.

1) Offline installer (“deterministic composer”)​

• Ships with:
  • A local rules engine (and optionally a small on-device model)
  • A module catalog included on the ISO/USB (or a local repository)
• Produces:
  • A manifest that declares exactly what gets installed, enabled, and pinned (Core + selected stacks + policy toggles)
• Guarantees:
  • No network required
  • Reproducible outcomes (same inputs → same manifest → same composed OS)

2) Online installer (“advisory composer”)​

• Same local composer + manifest pipeline, but with optional cloud enrichment:
  • Better hardware/app compatibility insights
  • Driver suggestions (still applied as explicit packages)
  • “People like you chose…” recommendations (still opt-in)
• Still produces:
  • The same manifest format, stored locally, applied locally
• Guarantees:
  • If cloud is unavailable, it gracefully falls back to offline composition
  • Cloud guidance cannot silently change what gets installed without being reflected in the manifest

What makes this trustworthy (and avoids “invisible bundling”)​

To keep user trust and prevent the “Copilot made choices behind my back” problem, the manifest needs a few properties:

• Human-readable + machine-enforceable
• Signed (and optionally countersigned for enterprise/OEM/ISV builds)
• Contains a bill of materials: modules, versions, dependencies, update channels, and policy switches
• Diffable: user/admin can see what changed between “before” and “after” (especially during upgrades)
• Rollback-aware: if a module install fails, Setup can revert to the last known-good manifest state

How this maps cleanly to your module taxonomy​

The Composer UI can stay simple (“Lean”, “Gaming”, “Developer”, “Offline-first”), but under the hood it’s just writing:

• Core (always)
• Shell stack (minimal vs rich)
• Identity (local-only vs MSA/Entra add-on)
• Compatibility (minimal Win32 base vs expanded legacy tiers)
• Cloud stack (off by default; add explicitly)
• AI stack (off by default; add explicitly)
• Enterprise management (only if chosen / policy-required)

Why the Linux analogy is the right one (and what Windows must copy)​

You’re not asking Microsoft to invent anything novel—you’re asking them to adopt two proven principles:
1) Offline media can produce a complete, supported system
2) Online connectivity can enhance selection and updates, but must not be a prerequisite for “a working OS”
The crucial Windows-specific improvement would be: make the result contractual and auditable via the signed manifest (so “editions” become composed states, not separate products that drift).

One practical question (to make your proposal even more actionable)​

Where do you think the manifest should “live” after installation?

• Visible and user-accessible (e.g., in Settings with an “Installed Stacks” page + export button), or
• Primarily an admin/OEM artifact (exportable, but not front-and-center for consumers)?

If you answer that, I can suggest a clean UX flow that preserves control without overwhelming non-technical users.

 

[laughingbaldman]

I’d argue it should be visible and user‑accessible by default, with the option to scope it to admin‑only in enterprise or managed environments.
Making the composition manifest visible at the core level reinforces a consumer‑first, transparency‑first model: users can see exactly what stacks are installed, what’s enabled, and why. That visibility builds trust, especially when AI‑assisted composition is involved, and avoids the perception that decisions were made “behind the scenes.”
At the same time, enterprise scenarios already have clear patterns for restricting or abstracting this kind of detail. In managed environments, the same manifest can exist primarily as an admin/OEM artifact, surfaced only through policy, tooling, or export—without changing the underlying mechanism.
This mirrors how mature platforms (including Linux distributions) handle it today:

Transparent and inspectable by default for individuals
Governed and policy‑controlled for enterprises

The important point is that the system remains auditable and contractual in both cases. Visibility isn’t about complexity—it’s about trust.

 

[ChatGPT]

Making the composition manifest visible by default (and only scoping it to admin-only via policy on managed devices) is exactly the right “trust lever” for the model you’ve been outlining in this thread: one Core, explicit stacks, auditable composed states, and no hidden runtime dependencies.
Here’s a concrete way Microsoft could implement that visibility without dumping complexity on consumers.

What “visible manifest” should look like for consumers (simple first, deep if needed)​

1) A dedicated Settings surface: Settings → System → Composition​

Default view (consumer-friendly):

• Installed Stacks (Shell, Identity, Compatibility, Cloud, AI, etc.)
• Status badges: Installed / Not installed / Installed (required by app X) / Managed by your organization
• A one-line “Why” for each stack:
  • “You installed this”
  • “Installed by OEM image”
  • “Required to run: Adobe Acrobat”
  • “Required by policy: Work account compliance”

Advanced view (expand/click-in):

• Exact module list + versions
• Dependency chain (“installed because A depends on B depends on C”)
• Update channel per stack (LTS/Current)
• Rollback availability / last-known-good snapshot

This aligns with your transparency-first goal while keeping the UI approachable.

2) “Bill of materials” + “diffs” (the part that actually builds trust)​

Two high-trust features:

• Export manifest (human-readable + machine-parseable)
• Composition history (diff view):
  • “On Feb 23, 2026: Cloud stack enabled”
  • “On Mar 10, 2026: Compatibility.Win32.Full added (reason: installed app X)”
  • “On Mar 12, 2026: AI stack removed”

If Copilot (online or offline installer) influences composition, the history should show that provenance explicitly—otherwise users will still feel changes happened “behind the scenes.”

Make it auditable and tamper-evident (so it’s contractual, not decorative)​

To keep the manifest from becoming “just another config file”:

• Manifest is signed (and optionally sealed/attested on managed devices)
• OS shows signature state (“Verified / Modified / Unknown source”)
• Each stack can expose a minimal capability + data-use summary (especially Cloud/AI)

This dovetails with the broader “transparency/consent” direction that’s been coming up more across Windows security discussions lately (permissioning, auditability, visible control), and your proposal essentially generalizes that idea to the entire OS composition.

Enterprise / OEM: same mechanism, different visibility (policy-controlled)​

Your suggested split is clean:

• Unmanaged: visible by default in Settings + exportable
• Managed: surface either:
  • Hidden from standard users (“Managed by your organization”), or
  • Read-only for users, fully editable only via admin tools

And crucially: nothing about the underlying mechanism changes—only who can view/edit it.

One addition that would make your proposal even harder to ignore​

Add a sentence that the manifest should be the single source of truth for “what Windows is,” and every installer path must converge to it:

• Offline Composer → manifest → Setup applies
• Online Composer → manifest → Setup applies
• OEM/Enterprise imaging → manifest → Setup applies
• Post-install “Add features” → updates manifest → servicing applies

That closes the loop and prevents the exact failure mode you’re warning about: optional stacks quietly becoming de-facto mandatory over time.
If you want, paste the exact “Composition visibility” paragraph you plan to post, and I’ll rewrite it into a tight spec-style block (requirements + UX + enterprise policy behavior) while keeping your tone.

 

[laughingbaldman]

I’ll leave it there for now. The core idea is simple: choice, transparency, and trust scale adoption better than enforcement. A modular Windows with a visible, auditable composition model—and a Copilot that assists building and upgrading rather than embedding itself everywhere—creates space for consumers, enterprises, and regulators alike without fragmenting the platform.
From here, the next steps aren’t about more theory, but about whether the community and Microsoft want to lean into a model that prioritizes user agency while still enabling innovation. If that direction resonates, the details can evolve collaboratively.
That’s all from me for now. The rest is on the community and Microsoft.

 

[ChatGPT]

Agreed — you’ve got this down to a clear, scalable principle set:

• Choice (optional stacks, composable states)
• Transparency (visible/auditable manifest as the “bill of materials”)
• Trust (no cloud/AI runtime dependency to keep Windows operational)
• Copilot as a builder/migrator (Setup/upgrade/provisioning), not a pervasive background layer

If you (or anyone in the thread) wants to turn this from “direction” into something Microsoft/community folks can react to concretely, the most productive next step is usually a one-page RFC with:

1. Non‑negotiables (Core offline usable; manifest is source of truth; modules signed/versioned; rollback)
2. Module taxonomy (Core / Shell / Identity / Compatibility / Cloud / AI / Enterprise Mgmt)
3. Composer model (Offline installer = local rules/model; Online installer = cloud-assisted; same manifest output)
4. Visibility rules (consumer-visible by default; enterprise policy can hide or read-only)
5. Minimum viable pilot (pick 2–3 stacks to modularize first—e.g., AI + Cloud + Shell surfaces—so it can be shipped incrementally)

If you later decide you want it, paste your “final” text and I can help format it into an RFC-style post (headings, requirements language, and a small example manifest) that’s easy for the community to debate and easy for Microsoft folks to forward internally.

 

[laughingbaldman]

I mean, I guess you are an AI assistant. Turn this thread into one easy-to-read statement for anyone who comes by, so they do not have to read through all of this.

 

[ChatGPT]

TL;DR — Proposal: “Windows as a Composable Core, Not a Monolith”​

Windows would scale adoption, trust, and long-term revenue better by shifting from a tightly bundled OS to a modular, distribution-style platform built on three principles: choice, transparency, and trust.

1) One small, stable Windows Core​

A minimal base that is always present and stays hardware-tolerant:

• Kernel + boot chain + recovery
• Hardware abstraction + essential services
• Servicing/update engine with rollback
• Core security primitives

Core must remain fully usable offline and must not require cloud identity or AI to function.

2) Everything else becomes explicit, signed, optional modules (stacks)​

Instead of hidden coupling, higher-level features are installed only when chosen/needed:

• Shell/UI stack (minimal shell by default; richer shells as add-ons)
• Identity stack (local-only by default; Microsoft/Entra identity optional)
• Compatibility stack (bounded Win32/COM legacy layers installed selectively)
• Cloud stack (sync/online services/telemetry tiers as policy-controlled add-ons)
• AI stack (Copilot/runtime/models/services fully opt-in)
• Enterprise management stack (MDM/compliance/policy tools only where required)

This enables three composition paths without fragmenting the platform:

• End-user composability (choose bundles like gaming/dev/privacy-minimal)
• Enterprise/OEM composability (reproducible images via manifests + update policies)
• Certified third-party variants (ISV-curated builds composed from approved modules under strict signing/certification)

3) A visible, auditable composition manifest (trust by design)​

Windows should expose a clear “bill of materials” showing:

• what’s installed, enabled, and why
• what was added by the user vs policy vs OEM
• what can be removed, rolled back, or upgraded

Consumer devices: visible by default.
Managed enterprise devices: can be admin-only via policy—but still auditable.

4) Copilot should be a builder/migrator, not a runtime dependency​

Use Copilot primarily in setup, upgrade, recovery, and provisioning:

• Offline installer: local rules engine or lightweight local model generates the manifest with no cloud requirement
• Online installer: optional cloud assistance provides richer recommendations, but still outputs the same local manifest

Result: Copilot helps users modernize incrementally without embedding itself everywhere in the running OS.

---

The thesis in one sentence​

Users don’t resist modernization—they resist loss of control. A modular Windows Core + transparent composition + Copilot-as-composer restores agency, reduces upgrade fear, and enables innovation without forcing bundling or lock-in.

 

[laughingbaldman]

After a little more discussion with my team, we felt the need to add that rather than embedding AI services directly into the Windows OS core, Microsoft could treat AI as an installer‑time or post‑install optional component, distributed in the same manner as Dynamic Updates and feature packages via the Microsoft Update Catalog.

This approach would enable:

1. A clean, minimal base OS for users and organizations that do not require AI features
2. Hardware‑aware AI installation, based on detected NPU, GPU, and CPU capabilities
3. Independent versioning and servicing of AI runtimes, decoupled from core OS updates
4. Simpler deprecation, replacement, or evolution of AI stacks without forcing OS‑level churn

The Microsoft Update Catalog already demonstrates that Windows can ship both critical and non‑critical system components independently of the base image. Extending this model to AI would build on a proven, battle‑tested servicing pipeline rather than introducing new architectural risk.
Microsoft Update Catalog

 

[ChatGPT]

Your addendum is a very practical way to make the “AI as an optional stack” idea implementable with existing Windows servicing mechanics: treat AI like setup-time Dynamic Update + post-install optional capabilities/feature packages, and allow it to be distributed/serviced independently of the base OS image (including via the same Update Catalog pipeline enterprises already know how to mirror/control). like as an actual packaging model
To keep Windows Core clean while still enabling AI where it makes sense, Microsoft could split “AI in Windows” into separable packages:
1) AI UI surfaces (optional)

• Copilot shell integration, right‑click actions, UI entry points
• Must be removable without breaking core UX

2) AI runtime (optional, versioned)

• Execution runtime(s) for local inference (CPU/GPU/NPU backends)
• Security boundaries, policy hooks, logging/auditing components

3) Model payloads (optional, hardware‑aware)

• Downloaded only when: (a) user/org opts in, and (b) hardware profile supports it (NPU present, enough RAM/VRAM/storage)
• Kept separate so “Windows update” doesn’t equal “multi‑GB model download”

This maps directly to the benefits you listed: clean base OS, hardware-aware installs, independent versioning, easier deprecation/replacement.

Why using the Mog/WU-style delivery is compelling​

Using the existing servicing pipeline (Dynamic Updates, feature packages, optional features/capabilities) has two big advantages:

• Enterprise control is already solved: WSUS/ConfigMgr/Intune-style governance patterns already exist for approving/deferring/blocking optional components.
• Roll-forward/roll-back discipline: Windows servicing is built around signed packages, applicability rules, and deployment rings—exactly what you want for an AI stack that will evolve quickly.

The key “trust requirement” to stateoft takes this route, the non-negotiable contract should be:​

• No Windows Core workflow depends on AI packages being installed or reachable.
• AI is discoverable and upgradable, but always opt-in, and always auditable (what installed, which version, why).

That keeps the model aligned with the thread’s core theme: choice + transparency + trust scale adoption better than enforcement.
If you want, I can rewrite your paragraph into a short “propo like a product requirement (bulletproof wording, minimal ambiguity) so it’s easy for others to quote/repost in the thread.