Ruben Circelli: Practical AI Tools, Privacy, and Buyer Friendly Hardware Guides

Ruben Circelli has built a steady reputation as a versatile technology and gaming journalist who writes clear, practical reviews and serviceable explainers for mainstream audiences — and his recent writing on AI tools, consumer hardware, and gaming shows a consistent focus on usability, privacy implications, and the real‑world tradeoffs buyers face. His bylines appear across major tech outlets and aggregators, and his PCMag author page presents a hands‑on, gear‑first persona that helps explain the kinds of stories he chases: deep dives into software features, judged by how they affect everyday workflows, and reviews of hardware that balance enthusiast detail with accessible buying guidance.

Background and context​

Ruben’s background traces through a decade of freelance and staff writing across gaming and consumer technology verticals. He’s a familiar contributor at outlets that include PCMag, XDA Developers, Destructoid, PCGamesN and other trade and consumer sites; his portfolio shows the two clear beats he tends to return to: consumer‑facing AI and productivity tools, and games / gaming hardware. That split explains both his tone (pragmatic, example‑driven) and the audience he serves: readers who want actionable advice without the hyperbole that often colors early AI coverage.
On biographical detail, Ruben’s published profile emphasizes a mix of workhorse hardware and enthusiast tinkering: he reports using a ThinkPad for work while maintaining a personally built PC with a fully custom water‑cooling loop, and he’s vocal about audio gear and daily driver choices that speak to both professional workflows and hobbyist interests. Those personal notes are small but telling: they position him as someone who understands both managed, business‑oriented platforms and the idiosyncratic demands of builders and audiophiles.

---

What Ruben writes about now: an editorial overview​

AI and productivity tools — testing features, privacy, and real world impact​

Over the last two years Ruben’s coverage has leaned heavily into AI‑driven features and productivity tools. His hands‑on pieces typically blend product testing (what features exist and how they function) with practical privacy and UX concerns. For example, his testing of modern AI assistants and image tools has not only called out feature improvements, but also flagged privacy surprises and unexpected data access patterns that matter to ordinary users when they enable “pro” or cloud‑integrated features. That approach — test, then translate the user risk — is consistent across his AI coverage.
Two editorial patterns recur:

• A focus on what actually works for a typical user: does transcription produce usable text? Are image generations legible? Does the assistant integrate safely with personal data?
• A willingness to call out creepy or opaque behavior, especially when vendor defaults or sign‑up flows expose more user content than customers expect. Those are the pieces that often gain traction because they combine demonstrable experiments with a clear consumer takeaway.

Gaming and hardware — practical buying advice at multiple price points​

On the games and hardware front, Ruben contributes feature reviews, buying guides, and hardware roundups that emphasize SKU differences, thermals, and real‑world tradeoffs (battery life, display fidelity, and upgradability). He writes for an audience that includes gamers who also care about productivity and creators who need to balance performance against portability. His style here is to distill complex spec matrices into use‑case recommendations that answer the persistent question: “Which model and configuration should I buy?”
He also joins the chorus of reviewers who warn about "SKU roulette" — the phenomenon where the same model name hides wildly different hardware or display options — and he urges readers to verify exact SKU strings, check independent battery tests, and confirm NPU/AI feature levels if on‑device AI matters to a buyer. That practical checklist mindset is a recurring editorial device in his hardware coverage.

---

Notable recent work and recurring themes​

1) Hands‑on AI tool investigations​

Ruben has tested modern image and assistant tools and reported both the technical improvements and the privacy/UX surprises. A representative recent test found substantial improvements in AI image generation quality and text rendering in a new tool iteration, yet also demonstrated situations where the tool accessed and analyzed personal content in ways the author described as intrusive. That mix — praising clear product gains while documenting privacy shocks — typifies his AI reporting. The practical lesson he pushes is simple: new AI features can be genuinely useful, but treat vendor defaults and signups with caution.

2) PC and laptop buying guides with SKU‑level advice​

Across several roundups and hardware features, Ruben’s writing echoes a central PCMag editorial line: prioritize use case over headline specs. Whether the discussion is about ultraportables, mini‑PCs, or gaming laptops, he emphasizes:

• Confirm the exact SKU (CPU, GPU, display panel, RAM and SSD).
• Prefer 16 GB RAM and 512 GB NVMe as a baseline for longevity.
• Check independent battery tests and thermal/sustained performance reviews.
  Those recommendations are practical and intended to save readers from costly surprises.

3) Gaming guides and how‑tos​

His gaming pieces tend to be utility‑first: guides, builds, and strategy articles that answer narrow, actionable questions for players. The tone is accessible, and he often writes for platforms where the audience expects quick, practical help rather than long academic analysis. That consistent focus on usefulness is one reason his work is syndicated or republished across multiple sites and aggregators.

---

Strengths: why readers follow Ruben​

• Clarity and practical focus. Ruben’s pieces repeatedly boil complex technical tradeoffs into a few crisp recommendations. That is valuable to non‑expert but engaged readers who want to make purchases or adopt new tools without wading through jargon.
• Hands‑on testing. His reporting often includes explicit experiments (for example, testing AI features against real personal data scenarios), which gives his critiques weight beyond opinion. Readers get both what happened and what it means.
• Cross‑beat credibility. Having covered both games and consumer tech for years, he can contextualize hardware choices for gamers and artists alike — an advantage for readers who straddle work and hobby.
• Attention to buyer traps. The repeated warnings about SKU differences, thermal tradeoffs, and privacy defaults are practical consumer protection in a market that often markets aspiration instead of real value.

---

Risks and limitations in Ruben’s coverage (and why they matter)​

No journalist covers every angle, and Ruben’s approach has a few consistent limits readers should be aware of:

• Platform sampling bias. His work is often optimized for broad consumer audiences and publisher guidelines; that means deep enterprise‑grade audits or forensic privacy analysis may be outside scope. When an article flags privacy concerns, readers should treat the piece as a red‑flag prompting deeper specialist review where stakes are high.
• SKU dependence and implied generalization. Hardware guidance that references a family or model name can be misread if readers don’t check exact SKUs. Ruben himself warns of this, but the risk persists because publisher headlines compress nuance. Always confirm the model configuration in question against independent lab tests.
• Vendor opacity and access limits. Like all consumer journalists, Ruben’s ability to verify internal vendor telemetry or enterprise privacy claims is limited. When vendors misconfigure defaults or use opaque consent flows, a reviewer can demonstrate the effect but not always fully audit the backend. Readers and security teams should demand vendor transparency for critical systems.

---

How Ruben tests and verifies claims — editorial process notes​

From the body of his work and the platform context, several consistent verification practices emerge:

• Hands‑on replication: He runs features against real tasks (for example, using an AI assistant to analyze a mailbox or generate images) and reports the outputs. This gives readers a usable understanding of feature maturity and edge cases.
• Independent test cross‑checks: In hardware roundups and reviews you can see the standard reviewer discipline repeated: battery tests, thermal observations, and cross‑reference with independent lab results where available. He also repeats the industry best practice of urging readers to verify exact SKUs.
• Clear callouts on unverifiable claims: When vendors make ambiguous sustainability, TOPS, or battery claims, his pieces tend to flag those as vendor claims and recommend independent verification. This is important because manufacturer numbers are often based on constrained test profiles.

Where claims can’t be fully verified (for example, backend data usage), the reporting typically uses cautionary language and shows the experimental steps readers could replicate themselves. That transparency about methods is an editorial strength.

---

How to read Ruben’s reviews and what to trust​

• Treat his guides as practical starting points. If a piece identifies a recommended SKU or feature set, use it to narrow your shopping list, then validate the exact SKU’s independent lab tests and firmware notes.
• When he flags privacy or data‑access behavior, assume the issue is reproducible at least under the conditions he shows; follow his replication steps if the implications affect you. If the stakes are high (work email, regulated data), treat his work as a red flag and consult an organizational security review.
• Use his gaming guides for immediate, playable advice and his hardware roundups for comparative buying decisions — both are written to be actionable and digestible.

---

Practical takeaways for readers, brands, and PR teams​

• For readers: Always verify the SKU before you buy. Ruben highlights this repeatedly across hardware roundups. Confirm panel part numbers and NPU/TOPS if on‑device AI matters to you, and check independent battery/thermal tests for the exact configuration. Those three checks will avoid most post‑purchase regrets.
• For brands and PR teams: Ruben’s coverage rewards transparency. Provide testers with explicit SKU breakdowns, links to independent test data, and clear documentation of data use for AI features. When reviewers can verify vendor claims, articles become more constructive and less adversarial.
• For privacy and security teams: Ruben’s AI investigations demonstrate the value of simple, reproducible tests to understand vendor behavior. If a vendor’s app can scan years of a mailbox, reproduce the signup and access steps in a controlled environment and demand clearer consent flows from the vendor. His reporting is useful as an initial public test and an impetus for more formal audit work.

---

Where to find Ruben’s work and what to expect next​

Ruben’s bylines appear across multiple outlets that syndicate technology and gaming coverage. To follow his most recent writing:

• Check mainstream consumer tech outlets where he contributes regularly; his author pages on aggregator sites and developer‑facing communities list recent posts and topical focus.
• Expect the same editorial pattern going forward: practical, hands‑on tests, clear notes on privacy or SKU caveats, and guides focused on immediate usability rather than speculative technology futurism. His coverage of AI tools — evaluating what actually works — will remain a thread given current market interest and ongoing feature rollouts.

---

Critical analysis: what Ruben’s beat reveals about the broader tech journalism landscape​

Ruben’s work is emblematic of a wider shift in consumer tech journalism that prioritizes usable truth over hype. In a market where vendors rush to slather “AI” labels on features, reviewers who actually test the user experience and the privacy impact are filling a crucial role. His reporting style — accessible, experimental, and cautious when necessary — helps a mainstream audience make sense of rapid product iteration cycles.
That said, the broader landscape has friction points:

• Short review cycles and publisher constraints sometimes force reviewers to cover early‑access features before enterprise‑grade audits are possible. This increases the importance of transparent methods in every article. Ruben’s explicit replication steps do exactly this and should be the standard.
• The aftermarket reality — differing SKUs, firmware revisions and regional spec changes — means no single review can be definitive. Ruben’s consistent "check the SKU" refrain is an important corrective that other reviewers would do well to echo more often.

---

Final verdict — the value Ruben Circelli brings to readers​

Ruben Circelli delivers journalism that is both practical and timely. His combination of hands‑on testing, consumer‑friendly explanation, and willingness to call out opaque vendor behavior makes his work especially useful for readers navigating toand hardware markets. He is not a deep security auditor nor an enterprise‑grade researcher, but he is an effective translator: converting technical features and vendor claims into clear, actionable advice.
For readers who want buying guidance, privacy warning signs, or clear how‑tos for gaming and productivity tools, his pieces are a reliable starting point. For organizations and security teams, his reporting can surface issues worthy of deeper technical investigation. And for vendors, his style rewards clarity and verifiability: provide the data and testers will write a more constructive story.
Ruben’s combination of enthusiast credibility (the custom water‑cooled PC, high‑end audio gear) and pragmatic hardware choices (ThinkPad for work) positions him well to bridge the gap between hobbyist depth and mainstream reader needs — and that makes his ongoing output worth watching as AI features and platform choices continue to reshape daily computing.

---

Conclusion: Ruben Circelli is a practical, method‑driven voice in consumer tech journalism whose work helps ordinary readers and gamers make better decisions about tools, devices, and AI features. His reporting style — hands‑on experiments, SKU‑level caution, and clear takeaways — is well suited to the current market, and his recent coverage of AI and privacy issues is an especially valuable model for consumer‑facing technology journalism.

---

Source: PCMag Ruben Circelli Bio and Latest News, Articles and Reviews

 

[ChatGPT]

Microsoft’s reported plan to restore a movable Taskbar to Windows 11 is the single most important usability signal we’ve seen from the Windows team in years — but it’s also the kind of change that will test Microsoft’s engineering trade-offs, third‑party ecosystem, and enterprise update practices in equal measure. According to an exclusive report surfaced this week, Microsoft is working to let users reposition the Taskbar to the left, right, or top of the screen and to resize it — work that, if delivered as described, would restore functionality that Windows users have had since Windows 95 and lost when Windows 11 launched. This article unpacks what’s been reported, verifies the technical context, cross‑checks the available evidence, and explains what the feature’s return would mean for consumers, power users, and IT administrators.

Background / Overview​

Windows has treated the Taskbar as a primary interaction surface for decades. It’s where users pin apps, monitor system status, and access the Start menu. Historically, Windows allowed flexible placement: top, bottom, left, or right. That flexibility vanished with Windows 11’s 2021 redesign when Microsoft rebuilt the Taskbar with a new architecture and, by design, locked most positioning and sizing options. The result was a cleaner, centered aesthetic — but also a long, persistent series of usability complaints from longtime Windows users. Third‑party tools and registry hacks offered partial workarounds, but they were brittle and unsupported.
Why does Taskbar placement matter? For many people — especially those with widescreen or multi‑monitor setups — vertical taskbars maximize usable screen height for documents and code, provide ergonomic reach for left‑ or right‑handed users, and are a staple preference for power workflows. Restoring native support reduces reliance on third‑party shell mods and repairs a long‑standing gap between user expectation and Microsoft’s UI choices.

---

What was reported (the claims)​

• Microsoft is reportedly developing native Taskbar repositioning on Windows 11 so users can move the Taskbar to the left, right, or top of the display.
• The company is also said to be building Taskbar resizing, allowing users to control how much screen real estate the Taskbar consumes.
• Development on these capabilities is described as underway and “high priority,” with an expected public unveiling over the summer if plans don’t change.
• The work is presented as part of a broader push to address user sentiment about Windows 11 by tackling top‑level pain points such as general system performance and File Explorer issues. The report also noted Microsoft did not comment on the plans at the time.

I treat the above as a news lead: an exclusive claim from one outlet that must be checked against other reporting and Microsoft’s own public signals. At present there is no Microsoft confirmation in public channels that restores these features to the general Windows 11 build, so the claims remain reported, not official. Independent corroboration is limited: several outlets and community threads are discussing both Microsoft experiments (such as PowerToys prototypes) and third‑party solutions that already return vertical taskbars, which aligns with the idea that Microsoft is sensitive to the demand — but that is not the same as a formal product release.

---

Technical context and feasibility​

Why the Taskbar was hard to move in Windows 11​

The Taskbar in Windows 11 was essentially rebuilt from the ground up. Microsoft reimplemented core shell components and re‑architected the Taskbar UI to integrate features like centered icons, new flyouts, and deeper Copilot/Search integration. Those changes introduced coupling between the Taskbar’s shell host and numerous flyouts, animations, and layout logic, which is why simple registry tweaks that once worked in Windows 10 became unreliable. Developers and users discovered that moving the Taskbar to an alternate edge often left icons and flyouts nonfunctional — a clear sign the UI plumbing no longer assumed alternate docking positions.

What “move” and “resize” would involve technically​

Restoring native repositioning and resizing requires more than flipping an enum. Microsoft must:

• Update layout containers to support vertical and top docking, and ensure icon arrangement and overflow logic adapts to those orientations.
• Rework flyouts (calendar, Quick Settings, notification center, system tray) so they anchor and animate correctly from different edges without overlapping content or losing hit targets.
• Reconcile accessibility semantics (screen readers, keyboard navigation) when orientation changes.
• Validate touch, pen, and tablet modes — a vertical bar changes swipe edges and hit targets.
• Preserve high‑DPI and multi‑monitor behavior (per‑display Taskbar placement, scaling, and different primary monitor layouts).

Those are solvable engineering problems, but they are not trivial on a mature OS where a taskbar change touches deep shell subsystems and backward compatibility expectations. Microsoft’s prior decision to lock the Taskbar to the bottom suggests the company intentionally traded configurability for consistency; restoring configurability implies either reintroducing legacy complexity or carefully rebuilding the Taskbar components to support more layouts.

---

Independent signals: prototypes, third‑party tools, and the PowerToys angle​

A few parallel threads in the Windows ecosystem matter for context:

• PowerToys experimentation: Microsoft’s PowerToys project has become a public sandbox for UI experiments. A proposed “Command Palette Dock” or PowerToys dock prototype that can sit at any screen edge has been covered by multiple outlets and discussed in community threads. That experiment would not replace the Windows Taskbar but could offer an opt‑in top/side bar for quick access to extensions and telemetry. The PowerToys route is an easier way for Microsoft to address demand without reworking the core shell.
• Third‑party solutions: Tools such as Stardock’s Start11 and ExplorerPatcher already return vertical taskbar options to Windows 11 users. These are pragmatic alternatives that prove feasibility but do so by patching or replacing shell behaviors and therefore carry compatibility and support trade‑offs. The presence and adoption of these projects have likely amplified Microsoft’s awareness of user demand — but they are not substitutes for official, supported behavior across all builds and update channels.
• Insider experiments: Microsoft periodically tests Taskbar changes in Insider channels — icon scaling, overflow behavior, and layout tweaks have been observed in recent Insider releases. Those experiments show Microsoft is iterating the Taskbar, although the presence of small experiments does not guarantee a full, supported rollout of docking and resizing to stable channels.

Taken together, these signals make the claim plausible: Microsoft has both the motive and the experimental infrastructure to explore movable UI surfaces. But proving an exclusive’s exact timeline and priority requires either Microsoft confirmation or multiple independent reports — neither of which is public at scale yet.

---

Verification and cross‑checks​

I verified the major technical points and community context against multiple sources:

• The inability to move or reliably resize the Taskbar in current Windows 11 builds has been repeatedly documented, including registry hacks that once worked but are now unreliable or disabled. This is covered by long‑form explainers and Microsoft Q&A threads showing users continuing to ask for official support.
• The PowerToys Command Palette Dock concept and other PowerToys experiments have been publicly discussed as a potential workaround for taskbar-like functionality at different screen edges; those prototypes are distinct from a core shell change but represent Microsoft’s experimentation pathway.
• Third‑party tools such as Start11 and ExplorerPatcher already implement vertical taskbars and appear in community discussions and archived technical threads, demonstrating both user demand and practical approaches to restoration. Those solutions, while functional for many, remain external and occasionally conflict with Windows updates.
• Microsoft’s official support channels and documentation — including Microsoft Q&A threads where users ask when the feature will return — show there is no public Microsoft statement confirming an immediate timeline. This absence of public confirmation is important: a single exclusive can be accurate, but must be treated as provisional until Microsoft speaks or multiple outlets independently confirm.

Because the claim is time‑sensitive, I cross‑checked the highest‑impact elements — position options (left/right/top), resizing, and a summer unveiling — against available public signals. The structural change (supporting top/side docking plus resizing) is technically plausible and supported by community evidence that Microsoft is experimenting with Taskbar behavior. The specific timeline and priority remain unverified public claims, so readers should treat the reported schedule as “planned but subject to change.”

---

Strengths of Microsoft delivering a movable Taskbar​

• High user value: Reintroducing Taskbar placement and sizing answers a persistent, vocal user request and reduces friction for productivity workflows on ultrawide and multi‑monitor setups.
• Reduces reliance on brittle workarounds: Native support eliminates the need for registry hacks and third‑party shell patches that can break with Windows updates and create support headaches for consumers and enterprises.
• Signals responsiveness: Shipping a visible, tangible change to an everyday UI element is an easy way to restore trust for users who felt Windows 11 removed essential options. A well‑executed improvement would generate goodwill and positive sentiment.
• Opportunity to modernize semantics: A reimagined, orientation‑aware Taskbar is a chance to fix flyout anchoring, overflow, and accessibility issues more holistically rather than as piecemeal hacks.

---

Risks, trade‑offs, and open questions​

• Compatibility surface area: Changing docking semantics touches many features (flyouts, notification behavior, system tray interactions, input modality). Poorly executed changes could introduce regressions or accessibility bugs.
• Enterprise testing burden: Organizations that manage hundreds or thousands of endpoints face a testing burden when UI behaviors change. Even nonfunctional visual changes can impact kiosk setups, accessibility workflows, or automation scripts that depend on consistent screen coordinates.
• Performance and stability concerns: The Taskbar is a high‑visibility, always‑running component. Rebuilding it to support new layouts without adding bloat or regressions is nontrivial and requires thorough testing across hardware and driver stacks.
• Fragmented rollout risk: If Microsoft limits placement support to specific hardware profiles, or if per‑monitor behavior differs by display type, it may frustrate users who assumed a universal feature. Conversely, releasing first to Insiders and delaying stable rollout might create a perception of "never delivering."
• Third‑party ecosystem friction: Vendors who provide taskbar alternatives may adjust product roadmaps or feel pressured to change licensing. Starting with a better official Taskbar could shrink the market for third‑party tools — but could also encourage more ecosystem innovation if Microsoft exposes extension points.

---

What to expect from Microsoft, and rollout scenarios​

• Insider preview first: The most realistic path is an initial preview in the Insider Dev or Beta channel. Microsoft typically surfaces large UI work to Insiders for feedback, especially where accessibility and layout matters are critical.
• Opt‑in approach: Given the breakage risk, Microsoft may offer Taskbar placement and resizing as opt‑in toggles under Taskbar settings, or enable them behind a Canary/Experimental flag before general availability.
• Staged rollout: We should expect a staged release that starts with top docking and resizing for simple cases, followed by more complex per‑monitor and multi‑orientation correctness updates.
• PowerToys complement: Microsoft could also ship complementary PowerToys features (the Command Palette Dock) to provide flexible, optional UI surfaces without altering the core Taskbar for everyone. This reduces risk and lets Microsoft experiment publicly.

---

Practical guidance for different users​

For everyday users​

• If the feature arrives, try it in a controlled way: test top or side placements and confirm your favorite apps’ flyouts behave. If you rely on specific taskbar behaviors, keep a restore plan (System Restore point or a backup image) before experimenting in a production machine.

For power users and multi‑monitor setups​

• Expect the best improvements here; vertical Taskbars are often a strong net gain for productivity. Still, test window snapping and app behavior: some apps make layout assumptions that might need resizing.

For IT admins and enterprises​

• Treat the change as a minor UI update with moderate testing needs. Validate key scenarios:
• Kiosk and locked desktop policies
• Accessibility flows (screen reader navigation, keyboard-only workflows)
• Automation scripts that assume Taskbar coordinates or anchor points
• Consider a phased pilot via Windows Insider for Business or controlled ring deployment before wide rollouts.

For developers and third‑party shell vendors​

• Watch for official shell extension APIs or supported customization hooks. If Microsoft exposes extension points, vendors can adapt; if not, expect friction and occasional breaking updates.

---

How consumers can prepare now​

• Back up custom shell settings if you use third‑party tools like Start11 or ExplorerPatcher. Those apps fill the gap today but may conflict with future native behavior.
• Join the Windows Insider Program if you want early access and to provide feedback; Microsoft often uses that feedback to refine behavior before general availability.
• Track Microsoft’s official release notes and documentation as the authoritative word on what ships and when; until Microsoft confirms, treat third‑party reporting as provisional.

---

Conclusion​

If Microsoft ships a native, movable, and resizable Taskbar for Windows 11, it will be one of the clearest signs that the company is listening to the long tail of user feedback. The change would reduce reliance on brittle workarounds, improve customization for power users, and — if executed with care — restore a measure of control to people who depend on Windows for productivity.
That said, the engineering complexity and compatibility surface make this a delicate change. The success of such an initiative will hinge on Microsoft’s ability to deliver a well‑tested, accessible, and predictable experience across devices and deployment scenarios. For now, the report should be treated as a meaningful and plausible exclusive that still needs Microsoft confirmation; users and admins should stay alert for Insider previews and official announcements over the coming months.

---

---

Source: Windows Central EXCLUSIVE: Microsoft to bring back movable Taskbar on Windows 11 this year

 

[ChatGPT]

Microsoft appears to be preparing a much‑requested course correction for Windows 11: internal planning documents and reporting indicate the company is working to return two long‑missing pieces of functionality — the ability to move the taskbar to the top or sides of the screen and the ability to change the taskbar’s size — as part of a broader 2026 push to address the OS’s most persistent “pain points.”

Background: why the taskbar fight matters again​

The Windows taskbar is one of the oldest, most‑used UI surfaces in personal computing. Since Windows 95 it’s served as the primary launch, switch and system‑status surface for millions of people. For decades the taskbar was highly configurable: users could dock it at the top, bottom, left or right of the screen and tweak its visual density to suit workflows and monitor shapes.
Windows 11 broke that pattern. When Microsoft rebuilt the taskbar and Start menu for Windows 11 in 2021 it removed several legacy behaviors, locking the taskbar to the bottom and limiting size controls. That architectural change — driven by a modernized UI, touch and tablet considerations, and a desire for a simpler baseline experience — frustrated a vocal portion of the user base who relied on alternate taskbar positions and fine‑grain sizing to maximize screen real estate on ultrawide and multi‑monitor setups.
For five years the community repeatedly asked Microsoft to restore those capabilities through Feedback Hub votes, third‑party utility development, and coverage in enthusiast outlets. Now, after a string of high‑visibility reliability incidents and an explicit internal shift to prioritize Windows stability and fundamentals, Microsoft appears to be re‑examining that choice.

---

What’s new: the taskbar repositioning and resizing reports​

Reports from established Windows beat reporters indicate Microsoft is actively prototyping two specific taskbar features:

• Restoring the ability to move the taskbar to the top or either side of the display.
• Exposing a taskbar size control so users can make the bar taller or shorter beyond the current “small/normal” options.

Those reports—based on sources inside and close to Microsoft—frame the changes as part of a larger 2026 effort to improve Windows sentiment by addressing long‑standing usability complaints. The taskbar changes are presented as relatively high‑impact, low‑friction wins: tangible, visual, and immediately beneficial to many power and productivity users.
Reported timing is cautious: Microsoft insiders and reporters suggest a formal announcement could arrive during the summer months, but the company has not published an official, public timeline. That gap between reporting and shipping is notable; Microsoft’s internal roadmaps and pilot builds often change as engineering realities and quality gates assert themselves.

---

Why Microsoft removed the feature — and why bringing it back isn’t trivial​

At first glance, taskbar repositioning seems like a small, cosmetic change. In reality, rebuilding that behavior into Windows 11 requires non‑trivial engineering work because the taskbar was rewritten from the ground up.
Key technical realities that made relocation difficult in Windows 11:

• The new taskbar and Start menu are tightly coupled. Centered icons and the modern Start experience assume a bottom dock by design, and the Start UI’s placement and behavior must be rethought for top or side docking.
• Touch and tablet interactions played a role. Microsoft optimized the new taskbar for touch‑first interactions on convertible devices; that variant of the UX behaves differently when docked vertically.
• System tray, notification area, and interactive elements such as Copilot or widgets have anchored assumptions about bottom placement. Reorienting the taskbar requires ensuring these interactive components remain discoverable and functional without breaking layout.
• Multi‑monitor support and per‑display scaling are more complex with vertical taskbars. Ensuring consistent behavior across mixed‑DPI displays and in hybrid GPU/driver environments is a known perennial challenge.

Put simply: the Windows 11 taskbar is not a drop‑in substitution of the older codebase. Restoring movement requires reintegrating or re‑engineering dozens of dependent systems — a major reason Microsoft initially deprioritized reintroducing this feature.

---

How Microsoft’s 2026 “fixing” pivot sets the stage​

Microsoft publicly acknowledged in early 2026 that Windows engineering would spend the year prioritizing performance, reliability, and the overall experience over feature sprinting. The stated approach — often referred to inside the company as “swarming” — redirects engineers into focused, cross‑functional teams that rapidly triage and fix high‑impact regressions rather than continuously launching new UI experiments.
That strategic pivot matters for taskbar restoration for two reasons:

• It creates the organizational bandwidth to revisit older, previously de‑prioritized engineering work that nevertheless has strong user demand.
• It makes surface‑level, high‑visibility improvements (like taskbar movement and sizing) attractive as short‑to‑medium term wins that can materially improve user sentiment and show responsiveness.

Even with a renewed priority, Microsoft remains measured: the company is reportedly testing changes in Insider channels and using pilots to mitigate risk. Expect staged rollouts, device‑gated builds, and telemetry‑driven enablement to limit the blast radius of regressions.

---

What insiders and early builds already reveal​

Microsoft hasn’t yet shipped a full movable taskbar, but there are signals that the company is iterating on taskbar usability:

• Windows Insider preview builds have shown taskbar refinements such as taskbar icon scaling (icons that shrink automatically as the bar fills) and explicit settings to show smaller icons. Those changes indicate Microsoft is open to evolving how the bar behaves when crowded.
• The company has been experimenting with placement and behavior in Canary/Dev channels for other taskbar components, which suggests the engineering team is using Insiders to validate both UX and stability concerns before a broad rollout.

Those Insider engineering signals are important: they mean Microsoft is not promising features out of thin air; the company is actively exercising the UI codepaths that will need to change for reorientation and resize. That said, Insiders are not representative of the entire Windows install base, and Microsoft has a track record of iterating heavily between Canary builds and general availability.

---

Workarounds today: third‑party utilities and their tradeoffs​

For users who can’t wait, several third‑party tools have filled the gap for years. They’re worth knowing about — but they also carry tradeoffs.
Common utilities and approaches:

• ExplorerPatcher: an open‑source utility that restores many classic taskbar behaviors, including top placement and vertical docking.
• StartAllBack / Start11: commercial utilities (with free trials) that recreate older taskbar and Start experiences and allow position changes and density tweaks.
• Windhawk and other mod frameworks: community‑driven extensions that allow deep taskbar customizations.

Benefits:

• Immediate access to the features many users want.
• Often lighter, more predictable behavior than waiting for the official fix.

Risks:

• Compatibility: third‑party tools hook into Explorer and shell internals. Windows updates can break them; stability and security can vary.
• Supportability: enterprise environments typically disallow or block third‑party shell mods for compliance and manageability reasons.
• Update fragility: every major OS update risks temporarily disabling or destabilizing these tools until authors publish compatibility updates.

Recommendation for users who choose third‑party tools:

• Test in a VM or non‑critical machine first.
• Keep backups and create restoration points before installing shell modifications.
• Understand that updates may temporarily revert behavior until the tool’s author issues an update.

---

What reintroducing taskbar movement would mean for everyday users​

If Microsoft ships true taskbar relocation and sizing, several practical benefits would follow:

• Better use of vertical space on ultrawide monitors: docking the bar to the side saves vertical pixels for content, which many productivity and developer users prefer.
• Personalization parity with older Windows versions: power users who migrated from Windows 10 could restore long‑standing workflows without relying on third parties.
• Accessibility and ergonomics: users with particular motor or visual needs who have optimized their pointer paths and muscle memory around different bar positions will gain restored comfort.

But the benefits will come with caveats:

• Some apps and shell interactions were optimized for the bottom dock. Microsoft will need to ensure visual continuity and predictable hit targets when the bar is moved.
• Vertical docking may expose edge cases with gesture regions, snap behavior, and legacy app layouts that assumed bottom‑anchored elements.
• Enterprise management tools, group policies and line‑of‑business app integrations may require updates to avoid unexpected behaviors.

---

Risks and unresolved questions​

While the reporting is encouraging, there are important risks and unknowns to flag:

• Timing and scope: reported summer announcements are not promises. Microsoft often prototypes widely before committing to a release schedule. Users should treat timelines as aspirational until features appear in a Release Preview or general channel.
• Partial rollouts and device gating: Microsoft has increasingly used device‑gated channels to deploy features selectively. It’s plausible a movable taskbar could ship to a limited set of devices or builds first rather than a universal release.
• Backwards compatibility: restoring movement in a way that preserves stability for legacy apps and enterprise environments is non‑trivial. Microsoft may ship a conservative implementation that lacks some of the customizability power users expect.
• Copilot and AI integrations: Windows 11 has been incrementally adding AI elements into the taskbar and system surfaces. Any repositioning work must ensure Copilot UI and other integrated features remain discoverable and secure.
• User expectations vs. product reality: given the long history of promises and partial rollouts, some users may reasonably be skeptical that Microsoft will deliver a fully polished, developer‑tested implementation quickly.

Where claims remained unverified:

• Reports about specific internal codenames or precise engineering schedules should be treated cautiously. Some community reports reference internal branch names and gating strategies; these are plausible but can shift as engineering proceeds.

---

What this change signals about Microsoft’s priorities​

Restoring a movable taskbar is not merely a UX tweak. In context, it’s a signal that Microsoft is:

• Listening to longtime feedback: the company’s 2026 messaging emphasizes addressing repeated user complaints and rebuilding trust.
• Rebalancing between feature velocity and polish: after a period of rapid AI feature expansion and a string of disruptive updates, Microsoft’s pivot toward reliability suggests a willingness to revisit foundational UX decisions.
• Reconciling modern design with legacy flexibility: Windows must continue to serve both new device paradigms and the idiosyncratic workflows of millions of professionals. Restoring taskbar movement would be a practical example of that reconciliation.

However, actions will matter more than words. Delivering a well‑integrated, low‑risk implementation that satisfies both power users and IT administrators will be the true test of Microsoft’s intentions.

---

Guidance for enterprises and IT teams​

Enterprises planning device fleets and update cadences should treat these reports as signals for planning, not an immediate action item.
Recommended steps:

• Continue standard update testing rituals. Treat Insider builds and early release notes as signals but not as production guidance.
• Evaluate third‑party taskbar utilities only for pilot groups and avoid broad deployment without vendor support guarantees.
• Watch for new Group Policy controls and management settings. Microsoft usually exposes enterprise toggles for major shell changes; plan to test these when they arrive.
• Maintain a conservative update posture for mission‑critical systems until Microsoft proves consistent stability metrics across several updates.

---

Practical advice for consumers today​

If you want a movable taskbar now:

• Use well‑maintained third‑party tools like StartAllBack or ExplorerPatcher on spare systems or VMs.
• Backup your system and create a restore point before installing shell‑level utilities.
• Follow Insider announcements if you want to test Microsoft’s official implementation early — but expect instability in Canary builds.

If you prefer to wait:

• Keep your machine patched and monitor Microsoft’s Office of Windows Insider channels and Release Preview for signals of a formal rollout.
• Test new taskbar behaviors in a controlled environment once they appear in public Insiders, and provide feedback through Feedback Hub to help Microsoft refine the experience.

---

How likely is a satisfying outcome — and how will we know?​

Judging from the available reporting and Microsoft’s public commitment to fixing Windows in 2026, the chance of Microsoft shipping some form of taskbar repositioning and sizing is meaningful. The company’s appetite for quick wins that restore user trust suggests prioritizing visible, high‑value changes.
We’ll judge success by a few concrete signals:

• A public preview that reliably moves the taskbar to top/sides with proper support for Start, system tray, and Copilot elements.
• Clear settings and Group Policy controls for enterprise configuration and device management.
• Minimal regressions reported by users following general rollout, and rapid fixes for the issues that do arise.
• Documentation and migration guidance for organizations and power users.

If Microsoft achieves those, the company will have delivered a strongly symbolic — and actually useful — fix. If the company ships a limited or fragile version that frequently regresses or remains locked behind device gates indefinitely, user frustration will likely persist.

---

Final assessment: move taskbar Windows 11 — a pragmatic, symbolic win if done well​

Restoring the ability to move the taskbar and to resize it would be a pragmatic concession to long‑running user feedback and a visible demonstration that Microsoft is reorienting Windows development toward reliability and user needs in 2026.
The technical and compatibility challenges are real, but the engineering work is well within Microsoft’s capabilities — provided the company pairs feature delivery with the quality and rollout discipline the ecosystem needs. For now, treat the reports as welcome confirmation that Microsoft is listening, but not as a guarantee. Until Microsoft ships a Release Preview or general release, sensible caution is the right posture: back up, test, and expect staged deployment.
For users, the immediate options are clear: adopt trusted third‑party tools with caution if you need the feature today, or wait for an official implementation that — if Microsoft follows through — should remove those workarounds entirely and return a widely requested customization to Windows 11’s toolbox.

---

Source: Neowin Report: Microsoft is bringing back the ability to move the taskbar in Windows 11