Win10 Snakes and Ladders
And....down the backwards-compatibility snake we go. Into a nest of vipers.
"There are 16 million Win32 or .NET apps in the world. When we built the Universal Windows Platform, we left them behind. And that was dumb," said Microsoft Distinguished Engineer John Sheehan, speaking at the Build conference last week in San Francisco. Microsoft's Universal Windows Platform (UWP) is based on the Windows …
So, "We forgot about the old apps", this is the single thing that really matter to the users.
Its all about the apps, not the OS guys. People don't want to sit in an OS all day long, they want to use the apps to get stuff done.
Think you've just learned that when you make it hard or block things, people say "no", its a bit like whats happening with the push to Windows 10.
My concern is that this looks like a different angle on the push to try and get stuff into the store, then to ratchet up the security and bolt the door after. So, remind me what the store is supposed to do again - other than limit my choices and give Microsoft another revenue stream by taxing the developers ??
Personally, I don't want a single store, like there isn't a single shop on the high street. I want to have the freedom to install from any vendor I choose to trust. We all know that app stores can be full of junk and false reviews, some of them even have loads of malware ridden apps too.
If I go to acme corp and download the acme corp widget tool, then I know who I'm getting the code from. I;'ll rely on reputation and AV/AM tools that I choose to decide if they look safe.
If I go to acme corp and download the acme corp widget tool, then I know who I'm getting the code from. I;'ll rely on reputation and AV/AM tools that I choose to decide if they look safe...
Oh, for god's sake, NO! What are you, nuts or something?
Don't you know AcmeCorp were taken over by a coyote last year?
Linux distributions have software that use stores (or repositories) because it allows you to pull installations and updates essentially as soon as they are available. And of course, you can have as many repositories as you like, including local file systems.
Microsoft had Windows Update, and then Microsoft Update and this, essentially, will be Global Update, adding in 3rd-party applications. Plus, of course, it has the payment system.
You've just hit the nail on the head.
The user decides where to shop or what to download, rather than someone trying to decide for them.
Taking your Linux analogy, I can use the repos and get it easily (but probably a few versions back due to delays in testing etc), or I can go to the vendor, use their repo, or download their source if its provided (probably on github), or download their installer package - its all my choice. Additionally, nobody is trying to charge me along the way for some fluffy service.
The common thing here is choice and cost..
and 50 billion flies eat shit. Just because there's a lot of them doesn't mean they are right.
We're humans, not sheep - although MS would prefer to think we are, the better to herd us into their fenced and gated pasture, where every blade of dry grass comes with a price tag and tracker.
"Its all about the apps, not the OS guys."
Bill Gates knew this back in the 70s.
But MS must talk up WIndows, and use various tricks (ever shifting platform etc) to make sure they don't become irrelevant.
The annoying thing is that consumers (and I include corporations an even governments in this) just eat any sh*t, and never question the intentions of MS. So effing stupid.
So the solution to the mess you perpetrated as an operating system is to package and distribute applications with the equivalent of vmware ThinApp?
"There are 16 million Win32 or .NET apps in the world. When we built the Universal Windows Platform, we left them behind. And that was dumb,"
Doesn't matter, being smarter than you your customers have decided to leave you behind asap.
Be very afraid! Microsoft has given somewhere around 300 millions copies of Windows 10 for free. At 50$ a pop, this translates into about 15 billions $ in potential revenue and trust me, Microsoft is extremely eager to recoup all this huge mountain of cash. In order to do this, they need first that everybody moves to Windows 10 and then all applications come from their store. Let's not forget Microsoft told Wall Street analysts how are they going to monetize users for their entire lifetime: Windows as a service, app store, targeted ads based on personal information slurped from their users. Unless Google who have to chase each of their user, if all goes the Microsoft way they will have 1 billion cash cows ready to be milked on a recurrent basis.
Well, it won't stop working. That's too obvious.
But it will stop updating, becoming an easy target for viruses.
MS probably will do the deed just as a zero day vuln is discovered.
Then the APIs will start shifting, so new programs won't install on older Win 10.
This is a dead certainty.
Changing the terms and conditions, retrospectively, to turn something that worked into something that didn't unless you pay money. Hmm? How would that be different from injecting a virus that encrypts the hard disc and refusing to decrypt it until the owner pays you money? It wouldn't? OK, welcome to jail.
You *may* find that Win11 is OSaaS and that the support for Win10 expires 5 years after launch, turning it into a huge malware target like XP. If so, you *may* find that most customers just ignore the issue and carry on using their preferred OS, behind a firewall and/or in a VM as necessary.
To be honest, I can't see any long-term future for Windows *except* as a vehicle for running legacy Win32 software. If MS want to repeat billg's success, they need to do it with an entirely new product (and almost certainly not in the OS market, which looks incredibly hard to break into right now).
I've said it before and I'll say it again till I'm blue in the face.
Windows 10 will not go "subscription". They know it cannot, and they know they need the "first hit is free" business model.
Windows 10 will always be free. However, everything else? That's fair game. Along with selling the consumers data, advertising and paying for any additional features.
> Windows 10 will not go "subscription".
It already is. Enterprises already pay an annual subscription for Windows and that includes Windows 10. They don't stop paying when they install 10.
> Windows 10 will always be free.
Windows 10 is only 'free' for a limited time to a limited group of existing customers. It is not free to Windows XP customers or to buyers of new computers or to enterprise customers.
Thanks for quoting me out of context.
Windows 10 for personal use is not subscription based. This will not change. The "monthly use" is "free", though the original purchase had a cost (either through an older paid for OS and free upgrade or a paid for new disk/key).
I know you know what I meant. Did you think I was ignorant of the server and corporate based Windows offerings? If you wish to point out those additional points do so, but don't put words into my mouth.
MS offer subscribed and other services that can be paid for. They may even charge for updates, changes and additions to Windows 10 (personal) later on. But they will not and possibly cannot charge for the monthly use of 10. As an example, they do charge for monthly use of their Office suite, but have not and can not push an automatic update to change Office 2010 (personal edition) into Office365.
PS, they have not "killed off any revenue" because they said "last Windows ever" not "last OS". They already renamed "Internet Explorer" and have a new browser. If they wish to start charging monthly for an OS, they can rename it. They can offer a full subscription model similar to Office365.
If someone thinks they will change the OS mid flow, they need to realise, if that was the case they would have done the trials with existing software. But instead they seem to be copying Adobe and Apple for the subscription and walled garden models.
> Thanks for quoting me out of context.
You had not specified any particular context, your assertions were global in nature. You made bold statements which were uniformed and untrue.
> Did you think I was ignorant of the server and corporate based Windows offerings?
> but don't put words into my mouth.
There was nothing put in your mouth by anyone other than you. You made unqualified assertions without limitations that were patently false. You are now attempting to add qualifications and claiming it is other's fault that you were 'misunderstood'.
You can go blue in the face and stamp your little feet but some copies of Windows 10 are being paid for with subscriptions and others pay for Windows 10. In neither case is it 'always free'. Microsoft have stated the the 'free upgrade for existing W7, and W8.1 users (with exclusions)' would only last for one year. _Nobody_, not even Microsoft, knows for sure what will happen after that year ends, regardless of your claims.
Fine. By your own definitions I will also state Windows 10 is free and will always be free. As there are people with the ability to gain it for free and schemes in place to get free copies. Just as it is also paid for by subscription by some and they will always pay for that subscription.
So yes, it is a "global" claim that it is free just as it is a global claim it is charged for.
I'll admit, I'm unsure if it will go "free (as in beer)" just as some Linux distros are, or if it will just be "free (to use)" as Apple do with OSX. That you can argue over with me about. But I'll not take a side on it, I'll wait to see what Microsoft decide (in the consumer space, I have little interest or expertise in the corporate OS industry, but as you say they already do charge a subscription for this).
No stamping of feet here. Just standing steadily on the ground.
"Fine. By your own definitions I will also state Windows 10 is free and will always be free. "
It's only free because you don't own it.
You never did own Windows, but now it's more obvious because you are not even trusted to control it. Your instance (that is, the copy that resides in your machine) of the operating system isn't even your instance any more.
It's basically someone else's tool, installed on your hardware, that someone else can use to spy on you. That's some deal.
MS has just followed the logical conclusion of what Google did. Since Google managed to claw itself into the MS platform so that normal users could never fully get rid of it (re-installers sprinkled liberally all over the place), MS thought they'd go one better and make it so even technically competent people can't get rid of the spying. Short of switching to some other OS, of course.
I want the EU to step in with legislation, with teeth this time, to crush the wet dreams of some of these data diggers. But they will fail due to ineptitude and lobbying (aka "greasing").
Windows 10 will not go "subscription".
You might like to cite some evidence for that; repeated assertion does not count.
I can't seen any alternative but for WIndows to become subscription-only; by declaring that Windows 10 will be the last version of Windows ever, they have killed off all possible upgrade revenue; they can only ever sell Windows with new PCs.That's a *big* drop in revenue, with no commensurate drop in development cost.
Sure, they'll make some money from advertising and from selling your data to third parties - but will that recover the upgrade losses? That would be a lot of advertising...
If MS could get enough people to switch to Windows 10 it would save MS maintenance costs on Windows 7.
It is about saving money.
Remember, MS is not the only company giving away an OS, Linux does it too and Linux did it first.
Marketshare.com says 99 Windows user for every Linux user. It seems people are more scared of Linus than they are of MS.
The problem is Microsoft is *NOT* "giving away" Windows 10 -- and having hinted at monetizing the move later and that (plus the "telemetry" and enforced patching regime) has people looking over their shoulder for the inevitable "bend over, pay up or lose your life's work" moment.
99 Windows users vs 1 Linux? On the desktop, maybe. But as even MS admit, the stand alone desktop is almost defunct. Look instead at the number of computing devices using Unix based systems (Linux, Android, Apple,) from mainframe banking to the IOT and you can pretty much reverse the figures. Linux 99, Windows 1.
A large part of their hopes from an improved bottom line from Windows 10 will come from moving everyone to the new platform and being able to do away with support for the older platforms.
As for the store, I've not seen a single Windows Store app that is actually any good. Microsoft's own attempts are anywhere between half-arsed and just plain terrible. Build a first-class system that will make people want to use it because of how well it meets their needs and watch the users and the money roll in of their own accord. It's not that difficult to figure that one out.
That's the idea there, though... by forcing everyone to upgrade to 10, and by forcing everyone in 10 to have the Windows store installed, MS can make the claim that there is a large pool of people just waiting to buy some nice apps... so app devs, get going! Fill that MS store with a bounty of wonderful apps that will entice people to buy Windows phones someday, since the lack of any good apps for them is seen as a major impediment to their "mobile first, cloud first" delusions.
Once we're all on 10, MS can change Windows to benefit itself however it wants without any pesky details like "do the customers want this?" popping up. Previously, any major changes in function would be rolled out in new Windows versions, and MS at least had an incentive to try to convince people that they wanted this stuff so that they'd upgrade to the new version. It didn't always work out in the customer's favor, but at least customer satisfaction got a seat at the table, so to speak.
WaaS, though, dispenses with this; MS can push out any update they want, and it will automatically install on all of our puters, since we no longer get to control such things, and that shall be that. No customer approval needed, and none requested. You'll get what MS wants you to have, nothing more and nothing less, forevermore. In other words, when you install Windows 10, you're not just signing off on all of the changes they've made since previous versions. You're also giving your stamp of approval for all the changes they can dream up in the future too, without even knowing what they are. Given Microsoft's record lately, that makes you either very brave or very masochistic.
They haven't given away 300 million. 300 million is the claimed total, but that includes sales of new machines that already have 10 installed, as well as the paid upgrades of enterprise PCs (which were never eligible for the free upgrade).
Upgrades of existing PCs only amounted to a tiny fraction of Microsoft's revenue anyway. Most PCs came with a certain version of Windows, and they'd go their entire life with that version installed. Upgrading to a new Windows used to be one of the things that got people to go buy a new PC, and it was the OEM sales to the PC makers that has long represented the bulk of Windows sales. Giving the product away to the subset of home users that were using 7 or 8 (even if they got them all to upgrade) would not cost MS all that much in lost sales. Most of the free upgrades went (or would have gone, had they managed to persuade all eligible users of 7 and 8 to do it) to people that never would have upgraded if they had to go out and buy 10 and perform the upgrade of their own volition.
That, of course, does not mean MS is just being nice and giving away something because that's how they roll. They didn't give away Internet Explorer out of generosity, and they're not being generous now. One would be wise to be wary of Redmondians bearing gifts.
The reason my wife installs apps on her IPad but not her laptop, is that we trust that apps from the Apple app store will not destroy all the data on her IPad.
I was hoping that within a few years, it would be possible to put new software on our laptops without having to take an unacceptable risk.
Stay away from those "free" versions of Photoshop from those sites with blinking download buttons everywhere and popup ads.
Just go to the source, where the app developer lives. That ought to do it. And pay if you are required to.
Never ever got any virus from any legit site.
Got some malware-like crap from Adobe, and Google too has some awful stuff that is hard to kill. But apart from being annoying and sucking CPU they don't damage anything.
It may have been dumb, but it was intentional. The clear strategy was to move away from the "legacy" Windows API towards something that, if not universal, was, supposedly, portable across a much wider range of technology.
And, as with all established platforms that run up against new technology, it turns out that if you insist on users moving away from what they already have, they are at least as likely to move away to a competitor.
And suddenly all you have left is legacy business. Away from the consumer sector, there's probably a fair bit of life left in the desktop market - it is indeed dumb to choke that off in the hope of competing with tablets and phones, but it presumably looked like a spectacularly good idea in the Powerpoint presentation to the board.
Slurp forgot what the major premise of Winbloat was - the ability to install 3rd party software that user needs for a task at hand. The user determines what is installed and what features they want and are willing to pay for. This "legacy" software is still quite functional and useful to too many users for the users to abandon it in favor of a unbaked, quarter-cocked, incompetently executed App store.
App stores work on phones because there was no real important legacy apps to contend with. Google and Apple were smart enough to make it easy for developers to get apps to the users.
Repositories work in Linux because they are more flexible than App stores. The Ubuntu ppa and the Arch AUR allow people to provide applications outside of the official repositories through the package manager.
"And, as with all established platforms that run up against new technology, it turns out that if you insist on users moving away from what they already have, they are at least as likely to move away to a competitor."
Or to put it another way: never give a customer reason to review the market. I thought that was ancient sales and marketing wisdom.
It also eliminates the whole point of making this change. Why do you need a new API for Windows apps when there are no benefits, other than "easy installation from an app store". Seems like they are just following Apple and Google there, when the process of installing Windows apps wasn't a problem before, anyway.
So now developers have a new API they can target, but what is the benefit to them that would make them choose this over writing it as an "old school" Win32 app? Because cutting out the majority of your market (Windows 7 users) doesn't make me think any of them will be interested in this. There is no Windows Phone market to be concerned about, and Surface is basically a laptop so doesn't need touch support in its apps. Benefit for new API == zero.
Having written many installers (with InstallShield, InnoSetup, InstallAware and lately Debian packages too...), most desktop applications usually have installers simple enough to write. Some large ones may have some more complex one. Server applications, especially the large ones, may have very complex installer, especially when you have to initialize or upgrade them and upgrade/migrate settings/data/etc. - but this will be still complex in UWP, just it is complex in other OS.
And didn't MS already promised "one-click install" with .NET applications?
Nothing new to see here except a new (for some value of "new") OS with new holes to be patched. Let's not even get into anything else like the deployment process, the OS as a Service, telemetry, etc. There is no trust. If possible, it's a negative trust now. We know that "back seat" is PR speak for "oh... there isn't but we'll get to later... maybe".
This from them in an age where people are wanting a secure OS with minimal holes. An age where many of us are worried not just about attackers, but state actors, etc. If the security is in the back seat, then what's the point besides new headaches?
"Remember that my next laptop will convert into a tablet, be used with touch while in tablet mode on my lap in the living room, but have a mouse and full keyboard when in my study."
Wake me up when it also converts into a wall size TV screen with a recliner chair and a fridge stocked with beer.
In that specific case, perhaps, if you have a library of tablet-mode apps you'd like to also use while the device is configured as a laptop.
Otherwise, TIFKAM for tablets and phones and traditional UI for laptops and desktops. The problem only comes in when the OS attempts (as Win 10 often does) to serve up an inappropriate UI for the platform in question-- and on a traditional (non-convertible, non-touch) laptop or a desktop, TIFKAM is an inappropriate UI.
"Therefore having metro on the laptop makes sense for at least some apps."
So bring metro (or whatever they are calling it these days) out when there is no mouse or touchpad detected, but where a touchscreen is present. Leave it up to the user to decide (in the tablet mode settings) whether to use metro if both a pointing device and a touchscreen are present, and for God's sake, get rid of metro completely when there is no touchscreen present!
Metro/modern/TIFKAM/UWP is for touchscreens, and should never be seen (by default, anyway) if there is no touchscreen present. There are too many compromises made for touchscreen use that are necessary evils when the user is handicapped by the lack of a proper pointing device and a relatively small screen. Why should users of devices that don't have those limitations have to put up with those UI compromises without any of the benefit?
On traditional PCs, we have plenty of screen space and a pointing device that can reliably hit a target of only a few pixels; why should we have to tolerate disappearing UI elements meant to conserve screen space (like URL bars on a typical mobile browser), menus that require excessive drilling down, and oversize controls meant to be usable with a big, fat finger that can cover thousands of pixels at once on a relatively tiny touchscreen? On a 6 inch, 1080i display, a circle of a quarter of an inch diameter covers over six thousand pixels! Which one is the one the user intended to activate with that big, fat thumb?
Maybe I'm insane. But what I want is the win2000/aero interface with the security updates of win 10. no telemetricts. Death of metro. Keep metro on tablets and phones.
It was called Windows Phone, and should have just stayed where it was.
Microsoft could have saved themselves millions of dollars by not putting Metro in Win 8, 8.1, 8.1.1, 22.214.171.124, 10 and just making a tablet that ran on more powerful ARM chips.
They could have, yes. But it would have defeated the primary purpose of post-7 Windows: To use Microsoft's dominance of the desktop PC market to try to overcome the "chicken or egg" issue in order to force a mobile Microsoft app store into being. If all the Windows desktops could run Windows mobile apps, Microsoft could try to sell potential Windows app devs on the idea that they already had a market, so there's no need to wait and see if the Windows mobile market takes off... so get coding now, devs!
That's of course what we all want, we all know that, i suspect Microsoft does too, but how can they monitize it, how can they use that to mskje you buy Xbox and windows phone products against your will?
Windows 10 is all about the lock in, it's all about getting you to invest in UWP, and then controlling your future purchases...
I'm hoping when windows 10 embedded arrives , someone can make a win10 core, that only does minimal Win32 & win64 support, and windows 7 shell....
Hah, forget that!
Just tried "apt-get install gcc" from the Ubuntu bash shell in Widnows 10 and I got -
Err http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates/main linux-libc-dev amd64 3.13.0-83.127
404 Not Found [IP: 126.96.36.199 80]
What a load of grey-bearded, sandal-wearing, prog-rock listening, kush smokin' Linux rubbish!
J J Carter - do you not realise you are using a command line application, written on the basis that the user probably has some idea of what they are doing, and if they don't then some ability to find out. Dear, oh dear, what on earth are you doing using this if the GUI is your comfort zone? I'm not sneering, it's a step change, but you really shouldn't be complaining - bad workman blaming his tools, and all that.
RE: " I'm not sneering"
Yes, you *are* sneering, like many penguins do. Sigh, how miserable I have been made to feel so often coz I didn't spring from the womb with a full knowledge of use and configuration of Linux from the command line, and the ability to compile a kernel in my head, plug a USB cord in my ear, and download it to a home built computer and have it running perfectly in 5 milliseconds. Go tidy your nest and trim your neck beard.
No, I'm not sneering. I'm genuinely bemused at the complaint, just as I would be if someone complained that the horse driven buggy they had just attempted (and failed) to drive didn't have a steering wheel or cruise control.
Sometimes we actually have to be willing to make an effort to learn something new, and not expect all the work to be done for us by someone else. It's a harsh fact of life, and too many of us seem to be very reluctant to accept it.
Well, am old fashioned!
When I buy something I like to think that,,,, I own it, if you don't buy a house you rent one, if you buy it you own it.Right?
I have bought Win 7, I would be willing to BUY say a years worth of updates and continuing service for a reasonable price per year, €50 would be reasonable ( I have Home Premium) and would give MS an income stream. If they think they can make me 'upgrade' to 10 and then think they have me by the short and curliesfor the rest of my life's updates/grades; they are wrong.
I don't want anything remotely like a walled in app supply either, Google on Android phones now want my card details to get an app from the play store, fuck'em and the same goes for what MS wants too.
The customer is supposed to be king not serf, markets should be driven by demand not by megacorps thinking they know what we should have and controlling the apps that are available to us under the guise of security or thinking they know what we want is not on and is contrary to basic consumer rights.
Security taking a back seat in this case is most likely so that when it all goes horribly wrong because of poor security they hope they can use it as a lever to force everyone into their way of thinking.
When I buy something I like to think that,,,, I own it, if you don't buy a house you rent one, if you buy it you own it.Right?
You do, but if it's in a Home Owner's Association, then you have to abide by their rules (think EULA and T&C) and many can be quite harsh. So before Win10, it was like a house in the country. Now with Win10 it's like a Home Owner's Association run by dweebs who don't live within 100 miles of you.
The problem is, you could buy the product for $/£/€50 a year. Or they could milk and control every customer for as much as they wish.
When looking at possible results, they see "this limited revenue in a competitive market" against "all of everything". Guess which one they jumped at without a consideration for anything?
Someone at MS should be sent to learn the Windows architecture - it looks they hired too many Linux developers who don't know that services are actually "daemons" - applications started at boot which doesn't require an interactive session to run - even on desktops - and which are a bit more powerful than "background tasks", although many silly services (i.e. some update checkers) could be better that kind.
"There are 16 million Win32 or .NET apps in the world. When we built the Universal Windows Platform, we left them behind. And that was dumb,"
looking at my taskbar right now, I see about 24 applications open, and every one is a so-called "legacy application". Eclipse Mars, Android Studio, Atmel Studio, Chrome, Firefox, Saleae logic, Keil uVIsion, Wireshark, Putty, etc. How the funk did they "leave them behind". This is what I've been thinking for years, how can they be so blind? These are the reason I am typing on windows right now - the only reason.
Hmm, taking a look at those - only two are windows-only.
When you talk about Linux to friends, they have 2 questions:
- Does it look and behaves the same as my current Seven Desktop?
- Can I run my truckload of old programs/crapwares?
W8 with the store has got neither... they started to fix the first question with W10, and now realize there is a second question!
Although Windows is proprietary software, users have a huge freedom: they can install whatever they like (including malwares!), just by downloading it from anywhere.
It's hard to force users give up the freedom once they have tasted it.
And obviously, it will also piss off developers that will see a part of their revenues being sucked by Redmond. Gabe Newell realized it several years ago and started to make lines move in the Linux gaming world.
So, good luck with that Microsoft. Sure you'll keep for some time the enterprises, they are slow to move and generally very sheeplike, but home users will flee on tablets, Mac, Linux, Chromebook...
And some day, young home users start working in an enterprise, and as they haven't known Windows, they decide otherwise.
One of the great things about Windows is that so many legacy programs work on it and I can put whatever program I choose to put on it. It seems to me that Microsoft wants to break that so they can control what programs you have on your computer. (P.S. Microsoft, they are PROGRAMS not applications. This is a computer, not a tablet or phone!)
Today, I downloaded a driver from HP's website for a Windows 10 computer. After I downloaded it, Win10 would not let me run it. It said the app has been blocked for security. (I do not remember the exact words, something to that effect.) That sounds good, but if Microsoft can selective block insecure programs, what else will they block in the future? "Sorry, that Firefox browser is a security risk. Use our Edge browser instead!" "Sorry, Microsoft Office 2003 is insecure. Use Microsoft Office 2016 instead!" "Dear VLC: nice software you got there. It would be a shame if it didn't run on Windows ... But don't worry, for a small yearly fee we can make sure it will run on Windows."
I still use programs and games that were made for Windows 95.
I do realize that allowing us to install anything we want also allows us to install malware and I realize that Microsoft needs to do something about security. A better approach would be if a program is flagged as possible malware would be to warn the user. You can block it from being run, but provide a clear set of steps to allow it to run. I rather deal with the risk of installing malware than with the risk of Microsoft telling me what I can and cannot install on my computer.
This is exactly what I can foresee happening, Programs or Apps being only installable via the Windows Store locking out all Downloadable installations so forcing the remaining incumbents to use the Store or be locked out of Windows sales and being forced to pay a percentage of the sale to MS for the privilege ! All this in an effort to protect users from malware and viruses whether they want to be or not (Yeah right, they just want a percentage of all the Windows software sales from all software devs for the privilege of creating software on a MS platform by forcing it all through themselves - pay up or f**k off is what they will be saying !)
I bet they will soon be saying, no of course you will be allowed to download from any source and install and then change their mind sorry but in hindsight we made a terrible mistake and think that it is better all round to only installations via the MS Store or Windows Updates as this is the best way to protect the user, meanwhile software devs have migrated to Linux where freedom still exists and no telemetry malware and Spyware malware unless specifically installed by the user. Time will tell as more and more Win 7 users are duped/forced into the Win 10 downgrade, especially the less tech savvy users. Even some tech Savvy ones have downgraded aswell although they usually use the excuse that they had to so, so they can fully understand and familiarize themselves with it to be useful in the future with their jobs (Sold their soul to the devil more likely !)
"Unfortunately for Microsoft, developers did not rush to build Store apps, and users continued primarily to run old-style desktop applications, because that was why they used Windows."
That, AND that "the METRO" interface is FLUGLY (flat,ugly), WAY too fat-finger friendly, and reminds me of child-drawn art (and not in a good way). So why should people WANT to use something ugly? (It's bad for the psyche)
But "the ugly" isn't the MAIN reason "the Store" isn't being used: "The Store" is just a TOLLBOOTH for developers, and there's no POSSIBLE 'marketing advantage' for putting "yours too" into a ginormous pile filled with zillions of existing [CR]apps, ones not easily distinguished from those few things that are actually USEFUL.
"Microsoft's approach now is to make the AppX installation files used by the UWP standard for all kinds of Windows applications. In some ways it is the next generation of Windows Installer."
i.e. pay a toll to distribute your application, particularly BAD for shareware and freeware applications, and place them into a ginormous monolithic "store" that's already "full of [CR]apps". I suppose some form of 'payola' comes next so that your 'app(sic)' gets some form of 'search priority' over the next guy... (self-slap for giving Microsoft that idea)
So instead, you can create an 'AppX' that you can deploy EITHER through "the Store" _OR_ from your own thingy? What advantage is THAT ?
"Provided [that] an AppX has been signed with a trusted digital certificate"
Oh, a DIGITAL CERTIFICATE - that you have to BUY from some "Partner" of Microsoft. Right. YET ANOTHER "tollbooth" to discourage open source and independent developers. Device drivers having to have this (since Vista) is BAD ENOUGH ALREADY. But *NOW* the APPLICATIONS THEMSELVES?
What ever happened to "Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers"??? (run over after being placed under the bus)
And then, there's this: "'You never have to write an installer ever again,' said Sheehan."
I already WROTE one, so why do I need an INFERIOR model to take its place? And why put my appLICATION into "the STORE" where it's buried in a big pile of [shaving cream]?
You generally do not have to do much for an installer anyway, _IF_ you statically link, don't use ".Not", and do some kind of very simple version control. Or if you're me, you already WROTE one, over a decade ago. Now, if your version of an application is 34 "redistributable shared component" DLLs of various makes and models, slapped together with a single "glue" executable, then maybe you might want this... because *THAT* sounds a LOT like one of those "the Store" 'apps(sic)' to me.
So, looks like Micro-shaft needs to scrape revenue from EVERY APPLICATION INSTALL in addition to annual subscriptions. And they think we're just going to ACCEPT THIS?
Any chance you are going to switch OS's ?
May I ask to which one ?
Dare I think it might be Linux ?
Surely not Android or Apple as that would be like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire !
Well as a Linux user I would welcome you into the fold if you intend to join us :)
"Well as a Linux user I would welcome you into the fold if you intend to join us :)"
Thanks, and don't forget FreeBSD too. most of my Linux stuff has either been embedded or "targeted device" kinds of programming. I've been off/on working on a toolkit for cross-platform development for several years, though. X11 has its own difficulties, and "all those toolkits" create their own versions of DLL hell. [I like static linking]. Haven't seen or heard of anything better. Should get it finished "some day" as long as Wayland doesn't change the rules on me...
APPLICATIONS are the key: if major 'broad use' application authors [not just Firefox, Chrome, VLC] had legit Linux versions of their applications, MANY more people would consider a Linux desktop and avoid Microsoft's stupid "the STORE" and windows 10 in general. Intuit uses Java from what I hear, so they SHOULD be able to do it with Turbo Tax, Quickbooks, etc. but I haven't heard of Linux versions of ANY of these. However, if it's true they're using Java, they'd be on board REALLY FAST if a major shift DOES happen.
THAT, and hardware makers SHIPPING THE LINUX BOXEN at slightly reduced cost because they're NOT paying the WINDOWS LICENSE. In fact, they shouldn't MAKE anything that is NOT Linux compatible, to protect THEMSELVES from the eventual BACKLASH. [that means the ability to opt-out of 'secure boot' among other things, so you can install ANY operating system you want on it]
yeah - avoiding the Micro-shaft toll booth at ALL roadblocks.
The "flugliness" of TIFKAM (The Interface Formerly Known As Metro) is really remarkable. It's not just that it's touch-oriented and is thus terribly out of place on a regular PC. My Android tablet is touch-oriented, but the UI is far more attractive than TIFKAM. It seems that MS has had maximum ugliness as the design goal; if that's true, they've succeeded.
As you note, TIFKAM is excessively fat-finger friendly, with comically oversized controls and buttons. It's clearly meant for tiny screens, and as such, it keeps on-screen controls and options to a bare minimum, requiring a lot of drilling down through levels of menus to get to anything important. On a PC with a 25 inch monitor, that's just ridiculous. It's a poor use of the screen space, and is visually, ergonomically, and intuitively inferior to the traditional Windows interface.
Although 97% of desktop computer users prefer non-Apple OSs, and 99% actually shell out mony rather than accept Linux's free product, MS would do well to remember that selling apps is easier when potential customers don't have to worry about security.
Apple and Linux are dismal examples of marketing.
Linux can't even give its product away. Apple sells less than one copy for every 20 copies MS sells.
However, there is little money in trying to beat zero sales.
Set the bar higher.
If you really want to rack up app sales, then deliver a better product. Deliver a product people can trust on the OS people want. Apple and Linux can't. MS can. But to do that MS has to improve security.
Yesterday I deleted 12 apps from my Chrome and Firefox browsers and 6 from my Calibre e-reader because vulnerabilities discovered in Firefox allows apps to take advantage of security accesses granted other apps.
MS needs better security than Mozilla and Google.
To get intelligent people to buy and use apps on computers customers care about (need security on), MS needs to ensure security.
"That must be why iOS and Android/Linux are only 98% of the smartphone market, which is 3 to 4 times the size of the PC market."
Actually according to Forrester, there are now over 2 billion PCs - which is somewhat more that the size of the Smartphone market (~1.8 billion). And >90% of those PCs run a version of Windows.
> Actually according to Forrester, there are now over 2 billion PCs - which is somewhat more that the size of the Smartphone market (~1.8 billion). And >90% of those PCs run a version of Windows.
The 'market' is the sales. According to IDC there were 276 million PCs sold in 2015.
2015 FULL YEAR SMARTPHONE SALES STATISTICS
TOTAL . . . . . . . .1,437.3 M
Source: TomiAhonen Almanac 2016
As for 'installed base' there are more smartphones than PCs.
INSTALLED BASE OF SMARTPHONES BY OPERATING SYSTEM AS OF 31 DECEMBER 2015
TOTAL Installed Base . 2,475 M smartphones in use at end of Q4, 2015
Source: TomiAhonen Almanac 2016
"...then deliver a better product."
They already do. Many simply don't want to pay the premium for Apple kit, and Linux can't run the truckload of legacy Win32 apps out there. The OS is only there to run the apps, and people need what runs their old apps. Hence why iOS and Android dominate mobile (where legacy didn't matter), the latter having recently overtaken Windows 7 (yes the desktop version!) for total web browsing usage share:
Never in at least the last two decades has the playing field become so level, and it's great.
A glimpse of the future for desktop OSs:
Although 97% of desktop computer users prefer non-Apple OSs, and 99% actually shell out mony rather than accept Linux's free product,
Lovely made-up statistics. Source?
It's much easier than that. Companies need proprietary software because it allows them to perform certain tasks that make them money. Smart companies seek to minimise their exposure to cost, which is really more of a driver towards Open Source use than any waffle about "freedom" (proven by just how little contribution flows from those companies). Windows has become a massive cost, to the point that it starts to overcome corporate inertia to change.
The problem: where can you you go if you need good quality software but want to avoid the Microsoft problems?
That is why Apple sales of hardware and OSX keep rising. Worse for Microsoft, using Apple gear also has a certain cachet that goes well with management so those barriers keep dropping. Add in the ginourmous security problems that have plagued Windows pretty much from the moment it acquired an IP stack and the question shifts from "Why" to "Why not".
The killer part of the argument then comes when someone actually sits down and really works out a TCO for the use of Apple gear. Good software costs a lot less, much higher usability translates in more productivity (also helped by fewer security patches and the fact that OSX keeps working without more than a reboot once a week) and only incremental changes to the UI means low retraining overhead. On top of that you have hardware that will at least last until it's written off and that can be serviced anywhere on the planet without complex maintenance agreements.
Last but not least, companies that have made that brave change suddenly realise just what they have been missing - there is no way they will ever return to Microsoft, and Redmond knows that (hence the seeding of, for instance, these forums with people who clearly work in Microsoft PR to try and snow the painful facts).
Microsoft is nothing if not predictable. It has never learned to operate in a competitive market, and that shows in all the me-toos they have tried. Competing means innovating, and by that I mean innovating on products and services, not on new sales BS and methods to massage statistics and buy favourable reporting. It's tried to imitate almost everything by now (the last wheeze is the Adobe subscription model) but as always they will make a mess of this too.
I struggle to find any positive comments about Microsoft's plans on this forum. Look through all the comments here and see if you can find any. I don't see how your assertion can possibly be right.
99% of home Windows users didn't consciously buy Windows, they bought a cheap PC with 'free' Windows install. In some cases an actually free install like my £120 PC running as a pvr on its "Win8 with Bing" freebie OS.
The only conscious choice they made was the path of least resistance and falling in with the MS monopoly and that's what worries Microsoft as they stop needing PCs MS loses those hidden sales.
Makes you wonder if they'd have been better off making a new OS. Maybe make it run on the Xbox One and have a "computer" bundle where it comes with keyboard, mouse etc.
This new OS would do everything they seem to want to do - just run store apps, be more secure, collect usage data etc. and provide a device that could be sold to non-tech savvy users.
They could then have left Windows as it was - legacy software and everything but allow it to run the store apps if you want - just another universal apps target.
I've been recommending Chromebooks (and even tablets) as PCs for people for some time - a lot of people don't need all the legacy stuff (and *will* try to install malware no matter what you tell them) - for those people an "XboxOS" which looked like Windows but was secure would be ideal. And Windows for those that actually need it.
They did try the "xboxOS" idea with WindowsRT, except that failed dismally as it had the horrible Metro interface, and no developers wanted to develop UWP apps so it ended up as useless for anything other than web browsing and was quietly abandoned.
It turns out the only reason to use Windows when there is an alternative, is because of the legacy apps.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019