| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Windows 8: the next twenty years |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-16 15:47:28 |
| Casey Muratori dissects the consequences of Windows 8's closed distribution model. "But how realistic is the assumption that the Windows desktop will still be a usable computing platform in the future? And what would be the consequences were it to disappear, leaving Windows users with only the closed software ecosystem introduced in Windows 8? To answer these questions, this volume of Critical Detail examines the immediate and future effects of Microsoft's current certification requirements, explores in depth what history predicts for the lifespan of the classic Windows desktop, and takes a pragmatic look at whether an open or closed ecosystem would be better for Microsoft as a company." The section that details how none - none - of this year's greatest games (or last year's fantastic Skyrim) and only one of this year's Emmy-nominated TV shows pass Microsoft's rules sent chills down my spine. |
|
| RE[5]: ReactOS |
| By moondevil on 2012-10-17 11:05:10 |
|
Actually Win32 development of basic APIs has stalled quite considerably since Windows XP release. Most new Win32 APIs introduced with and after Windows XP, are actually COM objects. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[6]: ReactOS |
| By Lennie on 2012-10-17 11:11:52 |
|
I don't do Windows programming, I did dable a bit 10 years ago or something like that, it just seems like waste of time. But what I meant is Win32 and COM together as they are both not WinRT. With Win32 I meant legacy APIs. And yes I understand that WinRT is basically build on COM ideas. Edited 2012-10-17 11:12 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: Comment by Luminair |
| By r_a_trip on 2012-10-17 12:28:39 |
| It is a problem in proprietary operating systems. Centralised software solutions have been a stock feature in FOSS systems for years and they haven't been accompanied with arbitrary exclusionary policies. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: I don't think ... |
| By RobG on 2012-10-17 12:47:31 |
|
I agree with all that, to a point. The point is the censorship implications. Why should we allow MS (or Apple, or Google) to determine which apps are fit for market? That's the area I'm concerned about. There seems to be a lot of FUD here as well. Some WinRT API's CAN be used for desktop development, there's a list of them up on MSDN. I hope this list increases over time, and that the Market becomes less restrictive on editorial policy. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: Comment by l3v1 |
| By RobG on 2012-10-17 12:49:53 |
| It would not be allowed under the rules of elligibility. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: First Valid Argument |
| By RobG on 2012-10-17 12:52:45 |
|
I'm running Win8, no problems with games on the desktop. I run Steam there. I really don't see the desktop disappearing any time soon, if ever. It may (hopefully) change, but the Open ecosystem would never adopt Win8 Metro UI. |
| - Score: 1 |
| Reality check will come |
| By pysiak on 2012-10-17 14:57:15 |
|
Having exhausted all other options, Microsoft will do the right thing. Whether it means allowing free market competition between both software delivery models or sticking to the windows store model, but making the best of a controlled environment and not being a restrictive douchebag. On the other hand. In 5 years time, I can't imagine businesses running business class metro apps on windows servers and workstations. They will have to be normal apps and I trust this being a constant force for a reality check for Microsoft. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-10-17 15:19:42 |
|
> ilovebeer, "Anyone who thinks the desktop is going to disappear any time soon is a complete fool and anyone with any common sense already knows that." Define "soon", the article is actually looking some 20 years ahead. The article is really worth reading in it's entirety since it gives a lot of historical context that should not be ignored, but the following quote seems especially relevant here: I didn't reference the article specifically as my comment was intended to be taken in general. Some people seem to think the Windows desktop could and will vanish at any point. Also, I can't imagine why the definition of "soon" would need to be clarified but I guess I'll play along: > soon [soon] adverb, soon·er, soon·est. 1. within a short period after this or that time, event, etc.: We shall know soon after he calls. 2. before long; in the near future; at an early date: Let's leave soon. 3. promptly or quickly: He came as soon as he could. 4. readily or willingly: I would as soon walk as ride. 5. early in a period of time; before the time specified is much advanced: soon at night; soon in the evening. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: ReactOS |
| By UltraZelda64 on 2012-10-17 16:28:00 |
|
> And lets be honest, even the ReactOS devs managed to defy all odds and release a stable, production-ready OS. Microsoft would just sue the project into oblivion (it's impossible to write a clone without trespassing on some design patents). That's a pretty grim potential future outcome, but if that happened, couldn't the ReactOS project take the LAME stance? As in, "we're providing instructions (source code) on how to make something... we're not providing any actual patent-infringing software?" It might take a long time to compile and be an annoyance, but they could provide some package that automatically takes the code and builds it and then generates an ISO with it... Okay, probably overkill, and maybe it wouldn't work across operating systems unless a compiler and iso generator (ie. for Windows) is provided too, and in general it would be a major pain in the ass... but it'd be an interesting solution. One or more scripts would automatically compile and then make an ISO file. It'd be interesting, but probably not very effective (especially at getting the OS to the masses). But the real solution, I think, would be to get every single ReactOS mirror the hell out of the United States and into a country where such ridiculous laws don't exist anyway. Then, those people from other countries where patents don't apply, they still get to download and use the OS and it doesn't die. Meanwhile, those people in "restricted" areas can choose whether or not they want to break some stupid little law or not. Edited 2012-10-17 16:44 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[2]: I don't think ... |
| By WorknMan on 2012-10-17 17:43:46 |
|
> The point is the censorship implications. Why should we allow MS (or Apple, or Google) to determine which apps are fit for market? That's the area I'm concerned about. I believe we need app stores in order to protect the tech tards from themselves. I don't even bother to install a lot of apps I'd like to try on Windows anymore, simply because I don't know what they're going to do. Things have gotten way out of hand with these 'toolbars' and such. Even Linux distros have distro repositories. And as long as these things exist, SOMEBODY has to decide what gets included, and users may not always agree with their decisions. So I don't have an issue with these stores, as long as you can side load. And currently you can side load on the desktop, which is the only part of Windows 8 that actually matters to me. As for Windows RT, well... that ain't Windows 8 :P Edited 2012-10-17 17:45 UTC |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |