Users recently noticed that third-party apps for customizing the user interface no longer work in the upcoming Windows 11 version 24H2. Not only does Microsoft not allow you to run those apps, but it even blocks you from upgrading to newer builds. StartAllBack, a popular tool for tweaking the taskbar and Start menu in Windows 11, was among the first to fail on 24H2. Sadly, it is not the only one. ExplorerPatcher also no longer works in Windows 11 24H2.
ExplorerPatcher from Valinet is quite a popular app that lets you bring back the old Windows 10 taskbar in Windows 11, apply additional modifications to make Windows 11 slightly better, and restore some of its missing features. Windows 11 version 24H2 is now flagging ExplorerPatcher as incompatible due to “security or performance issues” with the following message.
↫ Taras Buria at Neowin
I guess the taskbar and Start menu are incredibly important real estate for Microsoft, since it’s the absolute prime spot for showing ads. If users replace their taskbar and Start menu with something from a third party, that prime real estate is gone. Major conspiracy vibes, yes, and I know this isn’t the reason, but why else would they be blocking these applications?
I can’t think of anything that makes more sense.
Beyond the shock “click bait” all they are doing is warning people that the depeciated code is finally being removed so the hacks to bring it back will not work.
I am sure if these utilities changed their plan and wrote an alternative interface rather than just hacking back thing that will be eventually be removed they would still work.
Still unlike others I worry little about things I never use much (really what are you all doing). I am only on PRO. I get no ads (notifications you accepted and could turn off do not count). I guess since I do have office I do not get the office and onedrive nags. I would use enterprise otherwise I guess.
Yes my onther box is linux (mint), yes it’s also fine for me. Yes I hate ubuntu, I used to use debian, I may change to mint debian if that still exists, or just debian maybe. Anyrthing RPM based is obviously right out and worse than windows.
YMMV. People like different stuff. This is a non storey other than that things change (again t hey are not BLOCKING things they are depreciating old code).
Carrot007,
Naturally people like different interfaces, but if the linked articles are true, then MS have literally blocked the customization apps already. Fortunately the block is rather trivial to defeat by renaming files. Microsoft are probably just testing the waters to see if there’s any blow-back. Both sukru and Thom are right on their respective points: Microsoft can make the restrictions stronger and they might be motivated to do so because controlling the start menu is integral to their interests.
I’m going to judge based on the fact these apps are unheard of in the many years of articles about how to get your classic start menu back with classic shell (now open shell), stardock, etc. I would be concerned if it were those, but a name like “explorer patcher” is practically telling you how it works.
dark2,
I take it you don’t approve of “patches”, which I’ll grant you are not ideal. But unless your argument is that users of proprietary software should not be able to customize their experience to add back functionality and GUIs that microsoft are taking away, then realistically there may not be much of a choice but to use patches to do so. You must concede this is intrinsically a major deficiency of proprietary software compared to open source software.
Do you trust 3rd parties to alter your system files? And there you have it. Really this is just a few small players pretending they’re far more popular then they actually are, and complaining because they’ll have to do actual work.
dark2,
You’ll find that many of us here actually do trust alternatives more than MS. Regardless of this, I bet if we inspected msconfig on your system we’d find that you are also running tons of 3rd party system software and maybe even 3rd party kernel drivers too. After all anyone can buy a code signing certificate that windows trusts.
Hell there are even thousands of windows games these days that require 3rd party kernel drivers.
https://levvvel.com/games-with-kernel-level-anti-cheat-software/
Where does this hatred of yours comes from? You resent users who don’t like vanilla? There’s nothing wrong with people having different preferences to you, but you are acting like a religious nutjob who refuses to accept people have different preferences and may not like what MS has done the desktop. Nobody’s pretending to be more popular than they are. Popularity has nothing whatsoever to do with users simply wanting more configurability than MS gives them out of the box. Not for nothing but MS themselves are regressing and that’s why these 3rd party projects are cropping up.
dark2,
At least one of these applications is open source:
https://github.com/valinet/ExplorerPatcher
And StarDock has been in this business for decades, since Windows XP times. They have built sufficient trust with the community, and it is unlikely they would want to knowingly harm this relationship.
Alfman,
Agreed. Even if these are not efficiently implemented, they are not designed to be anti-consumer and restricting our choice, not like Microsoft is doing here.
sukru,
I’m not endorsing any specific product, but I don’t see the point in anyone denying that MS are pushing a lot of changes that users don’t want. A lot of the demand for these alternative tools was created by none other than microsoft themselves.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/552936/startallback-fixes-what-i-hate-about-the-windows-11-ui.html
Alfman,
Of course, I haven’t used these either. But had a similar experience in the past when I wanted something out of Windows where Microsoft pretty much steered me into third party “patches”
I do not always agree with @dark2 but I think I see where he is coming from here.
Patches are indeed less than ideal and, if I was the provider of the software being patched, those patches would bother me because if I change my software and they break, I am going to get blamed. Worse, if what those patches do is expose software that have deprecated, then I am going to get blamed when I remove the software I already said I was going to remove. Or I am going to be pressured to maintain software I have already marked for removal.
If you are going to enable an alternate UI ( even a retro one ), at least do the work of creating that software. If I understand correctly, that is what @dark2 is saying.
I hope we all agree that users do have significantly less control with proprietary software than they do with Open Source software. That is what the “free” in Free Software is meant to convey. I do not really fault proprietary vendors for acting proprietary. That is the deal they offer and we can take it or leave it based on the value they add. I am typing this on a MacBook that has been wiped of the “free” ( as in beer ) but proprietary OS that it came with. So, you know where I stand.
tanishaj,
I already conceded that patches aren’t ideal. Although it really is microsoft’s fault for nixing features users want and not providing an API to change them back.
Anyway I wouldn’t mind microsoft issuing a warning like sukru mentioned, that could be done in a reasonable way to owners. But if owners are not allowed to customize their desktops outside of what microsoft allows, then the implication is that windows will become that much worse for power users.
They already are, even replacing the entire “start menu” in some cases, in other cases it’s a matter of changing themes. But these mods need hooks into the OS that unfortunately microsoft doesn’t provide. So patches may be unavoidable.
That’s true. However when I was a windows user, I also made use of 3rd party customization. And as a windows user, my feelings were that I should be allowed to use apps to customize windows without microsoft’s approval. I suppose some people might believe that modding/customizing should be disallowed though.
My issue is not them blocking these by default. There could really be performance issues with the way those programs hook themselves up to the system.
However the more important issue is that Windows not even allowing to run them as an option. It has never happened in the past.
When they had UAC, you could go though enough prompts to run anything. You could even disable the whole system. When they had driver signing, you could disable that too (though with an annoying notification). When the internal anti-virus tagged your own crypto miner, you could exclude that on a directory-by-directory basis.
And from what I see in these posts, the only way to skip it is by renaming the executable. Which is probably a temporary solution, as Microsoft might add better detection in the future.
This is not the OS we grew up with.
> However the more important issue is that Windows not even allowing to run them as an option. It has never happened in the past.
This is not true. The error message shown says this:
> This app can’t run because it causes security or performance issues on Windows. A new version may be available. Check with your software provider for an updated version that runs on this version of Windows.
A search for this phrase turns up results at least as early as October 2020:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/jan5cg/when_trying_to_play_fallout_3_on_my_windows_10/
I suspect that this kind of app blocking has been around for longer than this, but it’s likely the wording changed so there aren’t any older search results that I could find.
Alfman,
I’m not sure I understand.
Yes, there are workarounds, like being able to rename the app to avoid detection. But, not having the app and only looking at reports, there is nothing in the UI where I can say “I just want to run this”.
(Unlike UAC, or prior system integrity prompts).
djhayman…
Sorry wrong person, and don’t have edit 🙁
Everytime I get annoyed with Linux I think maybe I should try Windows again, but then I see things like this, and I think it’s better to stick with MATE and Linux.
Darkmage,
I keep a Windows desktop for gaming, and pretty much moved everything else off of the platform. But still it is a concern not being able to change basic settings like how my UI works.
To be honest, I was not too keen with some Linux desktop changes either (moving away from X11), but at least for those they had technical reasons.