Agreed, and more generally, MSFT removing these 'classic' control panels is a significant issue because the new replacements often don't replace the full functionality of the originals.
This isn't simply that he new replacement isn't "finished" yet (which was sometimes claimed in the past when power users complained). In recent years, the reason seems to be the old canard "not enough users use (capability) often enough." However, in the case of Windows control panels, this is reasoning can be invalid because control panels were many times explicitly for advanced users to adjust advanced OS behaviors.
This would be okay if MSFT was creating the new "Settings" paradigm to be an additional kind of basic adjustments-only UI for entry-level users. However, what's actually happening is they're completely removing the old control panel while simultaneously nerfing the Settings replacement, leaving more advanced users hunting through the registry to find a way to control behaviors they've been able to control via interface in Windows for decades.
This isn't simply that he new replacement isn't "finished" yet (which was sometimes claimed in the past when power users complained). In recent years, the reason seems to be the old canard "not enough users use (capability) often enough." However, in the case of Windows control panels, this is reasoning can be invalid because control panels were many times explicitly for advanced users to adjust advanced OS behaviors.
This would be okay if MSFT was creating the new "Settings" paradigm to be an additional kind of basic adjustments-only UI for entry-level users. However, what's actually happening is they're completely removing the old control panel while simultaneously nerfing the Settings replacement, leaving more advanced users hunting through the registry to find a way to control behaviors they've been able to control via interface in Windows for decades.