If you're running a... "crowd sourced" Windows

[Barael]

You might want to take a look at this:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/buy

Basically, it's a pirate amnesty from Microsoft. No matter how illegit your current installation is, you can get Win8 Pro for $39,99. Now you might be asking yourself "well, isn't Win8 all sorts of crap?". Answer is yes and no. The new Metro UI is mostly crap, but the thing is there's a regular Windows desktop under it that it just as good if not better than Win7 and you can basically nuke the Metro UI if you want.

I just upgraded from Win7 Pro (which was my first legit Windows) which cost me like 140 euros (and that was for the OEM version). If you've been manning the barricades with a pirate XP all this time, I a) wish I was also and would've saved 100+ euros, and b) really recommend going legit as it costs a pittance now. There are some considerable perks to running genuine Windows, and you really can't complain about the price anymore.

[AchronTimeless]

Ok, I'm just going to condense my standard rant because I have a splitting headache, just took some pills for it, and I'm gonna crawl into bed.


Win8 has a new UI that is half the OS. You cannot download and install whatever you want in this half because you can only install software through the market. The software on the market has to be approved, which is a lengthy process that if it ends up like they run the xbox will end up costing individual or small teams of developers so much money to even release their software they'll go out of business. Not to mention some of the slightly questionable things some of us get up to, like youtube downloaders or the like. Do you think those will be approved? Not likely.

At the moment, they still allow you to run an emulation of the old desktop where you can install whatever you want from wherever you want. At least, for now.

The question you have to ask yourself is a basic one: Why for the first time in history is there a "walled garden" in windows?

Which leads to the next question: Is it only half the OS to provide choice even though it completely ruins any cohesive user experience, or is it to acclimate customers before Win9 goes completely closed off?

Windows, now with even more pointless restrictions than iOS.

[Barael]

Win8 has a new UI that is half the OS. You cannot download and install whatever you want in this half because you can only install software through the market. The software on the market has to be approved, which is a lengthy process that if it ends up like they run the xbox will end up costing individual or small teams of developers so much money to even release their software they'll go out of business. Not to mention some of the slightly questionable things some of us get up to, like youtube downloaders or the like. Do you think those will be approved? Not likely.

At the moment, they still allow you to run an emulation of the old desktop where you can install whatever you want from wherever you want. At least, for now.

It's definitely a bit weird; kinda like running regular Windows and some weird smart phone interface with its own apps on the side. I'm mostly using the Metro UI as a glorified Start menu (which has been nixed from the regular desktop). There's definitely some UI schizophrenia going on but like I said, you can pretty much ignore one side in favor of the other.

I'm not really worried about Microsoft disabling the regular desktop since they will lose the professional/corporate market overnight if they do. The Metro UI would be a nightmare to get any work done on.

[AchronTimeless]

My thing is, the intent is clear. There's no other reason to do what they've done. If it isn't an introduction into only being able to buy software from their market so they can completely lock down the OS, then it is the single stupidest interface design concept I've ever seen to have 2 GUIS fighting over which parts of the computer they control. So which is it? Greed with a dash of malice towards the end users, or gross incompetence? I'd say it's incompetence at executing the greed plan.

The corporate market, and customer backlash, are the only things that will keep it from happening for now. It sure as hell won't be because microsoft isn't trying to pull it off. In the meantime, screw it, I'm using Linux.

[Blizzox]

Ok, I'm just going to condense my standard rant because I have a splitting headache, just took some pills for it, and I'm gonna crawl into bed.

Win8 has a new UI that is half the OS. You cannot download and install whatever you want in this half because you can only install software through the market. The software on the market has to be approved, which is a lengthy process that if it ends up like they run the xbox will end up costing individual or small teams of developers so much money to even release their software they'll go out of business. Not to mention some of the slightly questionable things some of us get up to, like youtube downloaders or the like. Do you think those will be approved? Not likely.

At the moment, they still allow you to run an emulation of the old desktop where you can install whatever you want from wherever you want. At least, for now.

The question you have to ask yourself is a basic one: Why for the first time in history is there a "walled garden" in windows?

Which leads to the next question: Is it only half the OS to provide choice even though it completely ruins any cohesive user experience, or is it to acclimate customers before Win9 goes completely closed off?

Windows, now with even more pointless restrictions than iOS.

argument 1
microsoft knows that most computers are used "mainly to surf the web and play small games" most of the time
this for one does not require 90% of all the background processes (that slow down experiences) to do, and having a clear split in "walled off garden playfield" that runs only what's needed, is ultra safe from viruses because of that, but does not allow a lot of settings or install freedom (but because of before-mentioned is ULTRA efficient on hardware compared to anything ever before called windows)

versus the "wild west anything is possible" desktop mode where background processes are pretty much uncontrolled and slow down the overall system (think windows7 speed) but provide a lot of customisability and freedom in installing whatever the fuck you want, or do with it whatever you want

argument 2
the second thing is microsoft wanted an OS that could compete with tablet OS'es and still run all its background processes and do what windows is known and expected to do... (work with anything, easy to use, provide stability to a point, almost total customisability and almost all software can run on it)
these 2 properties are uncombinable... they just arent... if you think any OS does it you are deluding yourself... iOS just does not have the compatibility and customisation windows has, linux just does not have the ease of use windows has and not enough software is made for it for various reasons inert to the OS

so because of argument 1 (being that people just dont use all the functions windows has to offer but they do constantly slow everything down...) and argument 2 (being that its impossible to make a desktop OS compete with mobile os because of what people "expect" a windows product to do) the only possible solution was splitting the OS in 2, a mobile bottom layer, and a desktop "application"...

does this make sense? i am still learning english

[AchronTimeless]

Well, let me begin by saying if you're still learning the english language, you've just put a LOT of people taught it from birth to shame. Excellent work. In fact, so good it makes me skeptical of your claim that you're learning... heh. That's a non-issue to your points though.

You've got the essential gist of the situation, but there's a few nuances that you've either missed or just didn't mention.

There's the truly mobile versions of Win8 (the phone and RT versions) and the desktop version. These are entirely incompatible being that the phone and RT ones are compiled for ARM based processors used in phones and tablets while the desktop version is your standard x86 affair. They further confuse this by offering a tablet with is essentially a laptop with the keyboard removed and running standard x86 laptop components. The stated goal was to have a unified interface across all their products. Well, that's a horrible idea for reasons you already touched upon. There's a reason you don't see desktop computers without touch screens built to run Android. Well.. except for some weird hobbyist stuff.

The other motivating factor here is plain and simple greed. If they control the only way you can install software on half the OS, they get a cut of everyone's sales for the privilege of being allowed to run on their OS. Not to mention charges for mandatory "certification" to supposedly ensure that your software won't cause any problems. No more hosting some neat little program you made on your own site, because no one will be able to install it. Because they do retain market share, it's either pay up or start supporting Linux. The game industry, especially the indies, have started supporting Linux. Go figure. I certainly expect the walls of that garden to keep spreading out, until consumer backlash forces them to stop.

There's one other fun tidbit that doesn't get discussed much. At it's absolute core, a desktop machine running macos is running UNIX under the hood. Now there's an important distinction there that throws a wrench in compatibility. UNIX was meant for huge expensive mainframe computers. Linux was an emulation of UNIX that could run on everyday desktop computers. Eventually, with FreeBSD and such being ports of the old UNIX software rather than rewrites to achieve the same functionality, well you get an interesting little example of ring species in the OS world. (well, not literally because Linux was a parallel development, but you get the idea) The macs just throw a graphical interface over the UNIX core. Well, you can do that with Linux. In fact, you can choose how it looks and functions. Come from windows? There are window managers which emulate the look and feel very closely. Come from mac? Well, same thing without all the locked out bits apple doesn't allow you to play with. Want something different and nearly unusable? Well there's Ubuntu's Unity. Either way, a *NIX based OS is already successful and trusted so it's just a matter of consumer education.

Aside from a few games I'm having trouble getting to run in wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator... they love recursive acronyms) I'm really happy I made the switch. Some people who need particular pieces of professional software are kinda locked in though for the time being.

With the game industry going over and actually giving real support (Steam is on Linux in beta form, THQ is looking into porting it's recent and new games to Linux, EA is talking about porting Origin to keep up with Steam, etc. etc.) that one of the major barriers to entry is going away. If it becomes a real gamer's OS, then the install base will spread and other software companies will follow suit to keep from missing out on this market. For the first time in Linux's history, it actually looks like it really has a chance of playing in the big leagues.

Oh, and it's free.

[Blizzox]

I already speak 6 other languages, 2 as mother tongue combined with a decent spell-check it speeds up learning process tremendously.

I'd agree with your basic premise of greed, and the splitting of the RT/phone version and desktop version is kinda dodgy, however i don't see an evolution as you describe it.

What Microsoft is concerned there are 2 different type's of installable software; "Apps" and "Programs".
The first is only for the "billboard start-screen", the second only for the desktop Application.

Microsoft will never cease to support 3th party software for the desktop application, its not in there business strategy and abandoning that would mean they really have no advantage over other operating systems.

[AchronTimeless]

Well, in a technical sense, they have no advantage over other operating systems as it is. Install base is the only thing they've got going for them, and they have that because PC manufacturers sell windows preloaded. If they sold a Linux version for cheaper (since the OS is free rather than whatever windows licenses cost them per unit) and plopped that in the middle of Best Buy and Wal-Mart, you'd see something interesting happen with time.

The RT/phone and desktop thing is a hardware limitation. Desktop style CPUs suck power at extreme rates compared to ARM based processors. For instance, I have on my desk a little cutie called the Raspberry Pi. It's a fully fledged computer that runs off a spare cell phone charger. If I really wanted to get weird, I could power it off a USB port from my main rig. That said, I have to have a version of Linux specifically compiled for it, and software has to be ported over too. I couldn't take one of the games I got in the Humble Bundle and run it on the Pi, for instance. So, I can't fault MS for that one since it's actually not their fault.

With the little tile UI though, they're really pushing everyone to make their software work with that rather than the desktop mode. It's only there as a sort of legacy support at the moment. Of course, they've been wanting to ditch the command prompt for years and haven't managed to get people to stop going rabid whenever they suggest it. It's not even DOS anymore, just an emulation of it ran in windows.

I don't think they'll be able to pull it of, but it's clear they intend to go all tiles and make money on every step of the process of consumers buying more software. Like I said, you don't suddenly for the first time in history wall off half the OS to act like that unless you're intending to go all the way when they're used to it.

[Blizzox]

I was thinking of buying one of those raspberry pi's as an example in my classes, but kinda lost track of the project when they were adding extra usb's or something like it, care to tell me what you do with it?

I can confirm for you that this is not the strategy Microsoft is going for as of this moment, although they do make a push to put more software on the "appstore" thingy, that is going to reduce once the appstore is a bit more of a known value to the OS.

Software like Adobe programs, or Visual Studio will possibly be start-able from the Billboard, but they will run in desktop mode at all times, there is a clear separation between these 2 and there always will be.

Your fears are in my honest opinion fueled by how the RT version looks, and that projected on the full windows8 version but do take note, the RT is the tablet version... and therefore has more aim towards tablets and apps, the full version has more aim towards programs and software as can be clearly shown by the difference between the RT version desktop screen and the RT desktop screen

And as you said, if they really do what you fear... they probably wont be able to pull it off (and they know this very well in my honest opinion, hence they are not doing it, and it only looks this way from the RT versions perspective combined with a LOT of reviewers on-line reviewing the RT version as if it was the full version or giving the windows8 full version no fair chance)

Tbh a lot of stuff you say is exactly how the average user thinks about windows8, and its Microsoft's own damn fault by bringing out the RT and full version in about the same time-frame (and thus, causing massive confusion) AND on top of that having the beta run without ANY good explanation of how to use the new features