# Microsoft unveils "Windows 8"



## MxPhenom 216 (Jun 2, 2011)

Source

I hope they only use this OS UI for tablet and mobile Phones. I doubt microsoft will completely alienate the market with a mobile phone and tablet UI.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 2, 2011)

If you watch the video, it still has a Windows 7-like interface for "legacy" apps like Excel and such. A commenter put it well on engadget. People who use computers to "consume" will enjoy the Metro UI. People who produce (most of us) will still be using the "legacy" interface.


----------



## Kreij (Jun 2, 2011)

If that's going to be the OS GUI on desktops too, I can see why Balmer said it's their riskiest OS yet.

I'm not against change that's for the better, so I will hold off on any comments until I can get my hands on it.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 2, 2011)

same but from the looks there going for an os ment for everything and less PC focused but i dont see WIndows 8 giving us anything better then windows 7 at least when a PC is concerned.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 2, 2011)

When do the beta's come out?

This is something I want to get used to


----------



## Kreij (Jun 2, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> same but from the looks there going for an os ment for everything and less PC focused but i dont see WIndows 8 giving us anything better then windows 7 at least when a PC is concerned.



A lot of vendors are pushing touch screen home PCs.
For the average user who has a touch screen at home and is into more of a social experience on their desktop, this will probably shine.

For gamers, overclockers and application users, it would probably more of a hinderance which would explain the "legacy" use option.


----------



## D4S4 (Jun 2, 2011)

wtf is this, apple?

EDIT: okay, i got ahead of myself on this one but really, there are tons of eye-candy and stuff, but where are genuine performance upgrades, there's no excuse for current ram/disk usage and i don't see this speeding things up either.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 2, 2011)

DanishDevil said:


> If you watch the video, it still has a Windows 7-like interface for "legacy" apps like Excel and such. A commenter put it well on engadget. People who use computers to "consume" will enjoy the Metro UI. People who produce (most of us) will still be using the "legacy" interface.


And then they'll do to the "legacy" UI like they did with Windows XP (phased out Windows 9x/Windows 2000 UI) and Windows 7 (phase out Windows XP UI).  In other words, 90%+ of customers are going to hate Windows all over again.  Microsoft has to learn to not f*** with features that aren't broke.  If they don't learn, they will perish.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 2, 2011)

If you've used windows mobile 7, you'll know things like this work surprisingly well, add on some sort of taskbar for the multitasking you get on a real pc and It'll be good, remember theres a 2year gap between the tablet and pc version so this is probably the watered down tablet and phone version anyway

This OS is the tablet version,designed for touchscreens the real one comes 2 years later


----------



## Kreij (Jun 2, 2011)

@D4S4 : You updated your post about 2 seconds before I nuked it. 

They are presenting a differnt UI, no more, no less. The detail will come out later.

Microsoft does legacy UI so people can choose when the new OS comes out.
Interestingly, once people get used to the new UI they use it.
Windows 7 UI is far superior to 95,2000 and XP and I, for one, don't want them to go back.
They may not have kept all their lofty promises, but if they do not try to innovate they will die.
They will not survive by sitting on their hands.

Just my opinion.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 2, 2011)

which is fine Kreij but you have to remember this was being hailed as an OS for gamers and what not as well, im a gamer and i dont want touch screens touch screens suck for gaming... hmm see what i did thar? lol

we all have to wait and see but if windows 8 wants to be more like Apple and i wanted a more apple like interface id just fucking buy apple herp derp lol


----------



## D4S4 (Jun 2, 2011)

Kreij said:


> Interestingly, once people get used to the new UI they use it.
> Windows 7 UI is far superior to 95,2000 and XP and I, for one, don't want them to go back.
> They may not have kept all their lofty promises, but if they do not try to innovate they will die.
> They will not survive by sitting on their hands.
> ...



true, but i bet you'd hate to use this new ui with a mouse. and all the cod maniacs would find it insulting to their skillz. 

anyhow, the main thing that pisses me off is that 8 is probably going to be even slower and more resource hungry to give you some questionably useful features, this has to end. i want an os that doesn't take a minute or two to get it's shit together in the page file after i exit a game that eats up all of my ram, that doesn't get stuck if the dvd drive is having trouble reading scratched media and generally running less useless resident processes.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 2, 2011)

Kreij said:


> Windows 7 UI is far superior to 95,2000 and XP and I, for one, don't want them to go back.


A lot of people disagree with you (including me) and the option to go back no longer exists.  In other words, people are required to tolerate something they dispise or change to a different OS.  During Vista/7 years, Microsoft lost about 3-4% of their marketshare to Mac OS X.  That translates to millions of customers because of a UI a lot of people don't like.  If Microsoft makes that same mistake again, the company is clearly ran by fools and will go the way of the dodo bird sooner or later.  Many people have forgiven Microsoft for the first screw up but Microsoft shouldn't expect them to be forgiving again.




crazyeyesreaper said:


> we all have to wait and see but if windows 8 wants to be more like Apple and i wanted a more apple like interface id just fucking buy apple herp derp lol


This fact is mind boggling.  Mac OS X should want to be like Windows because Windows has dominated the market for 30 years changing little.  When Windows tries to be like Mac OS X, they bleed customers to Mac OS X.  It is a strategy that is doomed to failure yet, it appears that they still pursue it.  Mind...boggling.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 2, 2011)

also how much you wanna bet there gonna make options harder to find and more asinine to use... i bet the Legacy UI gets buried in some obscur location so even if you want to use it finding it at first for most users will be a painstaking lesson in relearning how microsoft organizes there shit lol


----------



## Kreij (Jun 2, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> which is fine Kreij but you have to remember this was being hailed as an OS for gamers



Source?

You mean like GFW was touted as their mighty push to support the PC platform? :shadedshu

I'm not defending MS's new OS, I'm just saying let's wait and see before trashing it.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 2, 2011)

Unity on Gnome is a bit more laptop and tablet friendly. Coincidentally i don't like it i like KDE better as its more traditional.
That windows 8 seems more like a shell on top of windows you can see him slide to a section that has the taskbar (that looks more like traditional windows).

EDIT: I dont see how anyone can trash anything where there is little information on it and its not even available yet but hey i don't jump to conclusions so maybe i don't know what im talking about.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jun 2, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A lot of people disagree with you (including me) and the option to go back no longer exists.  In other words, people are required to tolerate something they dispise or change to a different OS.  During Vista/7 years, Microsoft lost about 3-4% of their marketshare to Mac OS X.  That translates to millions of customers because of a UI a lot of people don't like.  If Microsoft makes that same mistake again, the company is clearly ran by fools and will go the way of the dodo bird sooner or later.  Many people have forgiven Microsoft for the first screw up but Microsoft shouldn't expect them to be forgiving again.
> 
> 
> 
> This fact is mind boggling.  Mac OS X should want to be like Windows because Windows has dominated the market for 30 years changing little.  When Windows tries to be like Mac OS X, they bleed customers to Mac OS X.  It is a strategy that is doomed to failure yet, it appears that they still pursue it.  Mind...boggling.



I imagine it's highly likely they'd of lost more market share if the UI had remained the same. How is that number even attributed to the UI? If they lost market share I'd say it was from all the bad buzz from curmudgeony people unwilling to adapt to any change. Clients still drive me nuts with the whole caching thing "I need more ram!!". No, you don't, jackass. "I can't find the system information?!?!" how about effin' trying. You didn't know where it was when you started using xp either.


----------



## micropage7 (Jun 2, 2011)

or just have positive thinking windows 8 will have personalization. if you using tablet you could take it, it you run touch screen or desktop you can take the other one. since win xp, microsoft like to push apperance pretty much beside its features


----------



## Conti027 (Jun 2, 2011)

Can't wait to play with it.


----------



## hellrazor (Jun 2, 2011)

I keep feeling more and more like switching everything to a CLI.......


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 2, 2011)

It's a shell slapped on Windows 7. Should have forked it instead.
So Windows tablets will still be two-pounders with 3 hours of battery life.
Move along, nothing to see here.


----------



## Bundy (Jun 2, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> If you've used windows mobile 7, you'll know things like this work surprisingly well, add on some sort of taskbar for the multitasking you get on a real pc and It'll be good, remember theres a 2year gap between the tablet and pc version so this is probably the watered down tablet and phone version anyway
> 
> This OS is the tablet version,designed for touchscreens the real one comes 2 years later




Exactly.

This release has been mentioned on these forums before. It's Win 7 for tablets. Very good effort though.

http://www.techpowerup.com/141584/Microsoft-Expediting-Windows-8-Tablet-Launch-to-January-2012.html


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 2, 2011)

Bundy said:


> Exactly.
> 
> This release has been mentioned on these forums before. It's Win 7 for tablets. Very good effort though.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/141584/Microsoft-Expediting-Windows-8-Tablet-Launch-to-January-2012.html



No, this is Windows. And no it's not a separate family. Tablets will simply ship with this shell as the default one.
Your programs are now "legacy" and only deserve a ghetto inside Windows 8.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 2, 2011)

I hold judgement until M$ actually releases something.

Current rumors suggest everything from no "legacy support," to a 128 bit OS (yeah, they haven't even really gotten out of 32).  Rumors of something from M$ generally snowball into insanity well before the product is released.

Speaking as someone who liked longhorn, before he experienced the fail that was vista, M$ can turn into crap or gold relatively easy.  Given that they're introducing windows 8 specific ARM processors (read, mobile processors), this is likely not a full desktop roll-out.  

In two years I can see a completely new OS.  For the time being, M$ can't even remove the remnants of XP.  Switching to yet another desktop OS doesn't make fiscal sense.  

Here's hoping that M$ actually learned from their most recent failures, and will release two decent OSs in a row.  A little bit of competition from the fruit and Linux hopefully is pushing them towards something amazing.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jun 2, 2011)

off topic but WTF is this shit? >>>


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 2, 2011)

This is now significantly less cool than one of their concept ideas Tom's Hardware showed off about a month ago.

I am sad now cause this is not cool anymore.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 2, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> This OS is the tablet version,designed for touchscreens the real one comes 2 years later



I would agree, but the guy said "This IS the new version of Windows.  It will run on laptops, desktops, touch-screen PCs and tablets" or words to that effect.  To me, that seals it.

I hate it, I really do.  But it's progress.  We've been stuck with the same basic UI since 95 came out, it's about time they changed it.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 2, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> I would agree, but the guy said "This IS the new version of Windows.  It will run on laptops, desktops, touch-screen PCs and tablets" or words to that effect.  To me, that seals it.
> 
> I hate it, I really do.  But it's progress.  We've been stuck with the same basic UI since 95 came out, it's about time they changed it.



its the same underlying programming but with a different gui, they are using the same os with a different gui this time round for compatibility reasons

expect to find in the shops

Microsoft windows 8 Home Tablet edition
Microsoft Windows 8 Home PC Edition
Microsoft windows 8 Ultimate Tablet & PC Edition
etc
etc
etc


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 2, 2011)

if MS would work less on this UI crap and more on getting good features like better security,  more recovery options for people getting infected with malware, better performance with hard drives, let the 3rd party themes work without UXTheme hacks, better networking, etc... then people would start to like MS more, but really this is so tiring. 

and this metro UI would look downright silly in my house.... I got a dark fancy atmposhere and this interface looks like it belongs in some hipster whitebox "modernist" apartment

and also... we like our "old fashioned" guis they are stable and productive and we are all used to them and have them in muscle memory.... all these damn devs think they have to change them "cause they're bored" is not good! We get good results with our current GUIs.


----------



## Captain.Abrecan (Jun 2, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In other words, 90%+ of customers are going to hate Windows all over again.  Microsoft has to learn to not f*** with features that aren't broke.  If they don't learn, they will perish.



Not really.  The business users are what built the empire, I will give you that.  In any other decade you would be right regarding your assumptions.  However the civilian consumers control the purchasing power now.  But there are a few problems with this new consumer base, which I will outline:
People are stupid.
People are very stupid.
People do not know how to use computers.
People do not understand user interfaces.
People are stupid.
By making the system as simple as possible for 1 billion customers who only use their PC for facebook, digital cameras, and youtube they will take the content control steering wheel from Apple.  Most of these frigging people don't even create their own content, they just consume it (as has been outlined earlier).

The touch screen + media capable interfaces are not Microsoft's way of fucking with everybody.  It is a industry trend.  Industry...trend.  Everybody is doing it.  It works.  It has worked since Zune.  It is simple, it does not require explanation.

My grandfather can swipe his finger and see the weather.  Done.  I assume the PC can wake from a swipe, seems reasonable.

Right now, he has to turn the PC on, wait, log in, wait, double click firefox 12 times, wait, search for google in the google adress bar on his homepage, type in accuweather, wait, type in his zip code, wait, etc etc.  I tried putting apps in his sidebar, but as soon as they pop up with a notification or "please update adobe" he considers it broken, and walks away.  He can't use computers.  People can't use computers.
PEOPLE NEED THIS UI.



D4S4 said:


> there are tons of eye-candy and stuff



You are correct.  Obviously any moving & scalable interface elements that present real data from files and software, harmoniously, is going to be power hungry.  I don't see any eye candy though.  The content windows were square, they had no bounding box, they were not transparent.  It looks like it was stripped down to be faster.

Going back to the new customer base, I will say that Facebook's load time has little to do with the PC's overall performance.  It can, if it is slow, but usually doesn't.  If that is the only performance metric that the new user base has, then they won't even notice.  Given that, what incentive does Microsoft have to fix your problems?  No one else would even understand you if you tried to talk to them about it.  "Pagefile? What is that? Have you seen that tweet from so-and-so?"



crazyeyesreaper said:


> we all have to wait and see but if windows 8 wants to be more like Apple and i wanted a more apple like interface id just fucking buy apple herp derp lol



Ha ha, yeah.  Realistically, this is a industry trend.  If anything, the Metro UI was for the Zune, and technically predates the touch iPods.  Microsoft released metro on November 14th, 2006.  The ipod touch came out on September 13th, 2007. Microsoft Surface also predates the trend, which I believe was the labs child that led to this development.  

Give MS all the shit you want, but they are king of the hill whether your head is in the sand or not. [not insinuating that your eyes are closed crazyeyesreaper  ]

It's a lot like that pervasive rumor from yesteryear regarding Mac having been the originator for window-based user interfaces.  The second part of the rumor was that Microsoft stole it, and we should all be ashamed! (I kid).  When, if I recall correctly, Microsoft stole the interface from _EDIT:_ Xerox (TY Red Machine).  Who should be the leader in design here, patents be damned.

Most _real_ industry leaders realize that Microsoft was first on the scene with stream lined interfaces that deliver content quickly and easily.  You aren't going to see the power players (business customers) suddenly filling offices with Apple computers that can't run Solidworks or Costpoint just because the boss' 16 year old daughter hails the iPad as the pinnacle of Interface Design.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 2, 2011)

Captain.Abrecan said:


> if I recall correctly, Microsoft stole the interface from Kodak.



It was Xerox who created the first native computer GUI back in '81 with the Xerox Star.  A lot of people (and sometimes even Apple themselves) think that Apple were the company that invented the GUI.

Microsoft didn't steal it from Apple anyway, they were being developed at the same time, Apple just got there first.  They even had the gall to sue Microsoft because Windows looked too much like the Mac OS and they were required to remove a few features from it (such as overlapping windows and the ability to refresh background windows in realtime).


----------



## hellrazor (Jun 2, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> off topic but WTF is this shit? >>>http://tpucdn.com/forums/customavatars/avatar63016_12.gif



I know what you mean, from a guy with the user name of "Pr0n Inspector". Makes me laugh a little though.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 2, 2011)

It looks like Windows 7 with a new advanced version of Window Media Center embedded in its core functions. 

It kinda of makes me feel like a console OS for the PC. 

Not to diss it.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 2, 2011)

Tiles are meant for floors.... NOT OPERATING SYSTEMS!


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 2, 2011)

sorry but i want a desktop UI, not a tablet UI. i know they will have a legacy version or whatever, but why not just create two different and separate UIs. ugh, i hate this whole tablet BS.


----------



## CrackerJack (Jun 2, 2011)

easy rhino said:


> sorry but i want a desktop ui, not a tablet ui. I know they will have a legacy version or whatever, but why not just create two different and separate uis. Ugh, i hate this whole tablet bs.



+1


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 2, 2011)

there is no way they could expect a business to implement this as their os. My guess is this is the GTX3XX thing with nvidia and windows 8 only goes to mobile platforms with another OS named something else being used for pc's.


----------



## Neuromancer (Jun 3, 2011)

Kreij said:


> @D4S4 : You updated your post about 2 seconds before I nuked it.
> 
> They are presenting a differnt UI, no more, no less. The detail will come out later.
> 
> ...



I agree and disagree.  

You make excellent points, static companies disappear. 

However one can tweak 7 to make it a usable OS with out resorting to legacy mode. (I forget the couple of tweaks needed, big one for me was the automatic windows resizing when you try and move messenger off the side of your 2nd or 3rd monitor  make me hopping mad. )

Also the OS of tomorrow is going to be more cell phone like simply because the kids of today are used to that.  I personally find smart phones to be counter intuitive.. but I am looking at it through more than 25 years of PC experience. I understand I will have to adapt, and hopefully will still be tweaking my OS (without resorting to legacy mode) to make it usable in 15-20 more years 


I am surprised no one pointed out that Gigabytes new click bios also looks like a cell phone


----------



## Kreij (Jun 3, 2011)

Depending on the implementation of the tile UI, it could very well be embraced by companies.
If the tiles could be apps (instead of all the social BS they show), then they simply would become icon replacements and may be a lot easier for people in the workplace.

I'm just speculating here as it will all hinge on how they go about making it customizable for the varying needs of computer users.


----------



## erixx (Jun 3, 2011)

i have a windows tablet and the research is not funny, but quite usefull instead.

of course like one said, you can not compare tablets and pc's. it is totally different


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 3, 2011)

I want this UI back.  This was actually kinda interesting.

http://www.megatechnews.com/microsoft-shows-off-futuristic-new-ui/

No one here wanted Windows Phone 7 on their desktop.  I don't like icons cluttering up my desktop, WTF makes them think making the icons 17 times larger would be any better.  Its my desktop, I want application, not apps.

P.S. Yeah, it was a shameless plug too, but it was the one place I remembered the video still being linked to.  And yes I know the Bubbles Interface is for Microsoft Surface 2, but hell this Metro UI crap is for tablets and smartphones.


----------



## Phxprovost (Jun 3, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> But it's progress.  We've been stuck with the same basic UI since 95 came out, it's about time they changed it.



How is this progress in any way?  Increasing your feature set and core functionality is progress, screwing around with a UI that no one asked for is not progress.  Even if this is purely for tablets and other mobile devices why would you want it?  All the progress that is being made in mobile processors is for what? a shitty UI i would expect on a first generation touch screen device? No thanks :shadedshu


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 3, 2011)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/06/6-1-11-metro.jpg
> 
> 
> Source
> ...



  Maybe this will finally mark the death of windows and the begining of a diverse software ecosystem in which there are lots of operating systems. 

 If this is window8, they can keep this piece of shit. I am sure they will find a way to shove more DRM into the codebase to. 

  What a fucking pile. 

 Likely ok if you are addicted to squinting at tiny phone screen though.



TheLaughingMan said:


> I want this UI back.  This was actually kinda interesting.
> 
> http://www.megatechnews.com/microsoft-shows-off-futuristic-new-ui/
> 
> ...



Jesus thats even more fucking obnoxious.



Kreij said:


> A lot of vendors are pushing touch screen home PCs.
> For the average user who has a touch screen at home and is into more of a social experience on their desktop, this will probably shine.
> 
> For gamers, overclockers and application users, it would probably more of a hinderance which would explain the "legacy" use option.



typing on a touch screen is a bad joke if you want to do it at a reasonable pace. if your a look and peck typist its not to bad.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 3, 2011)

thatguy, use the multi-quote button.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 3, 2011)

lol i love the qoute touchscreen PCs at home... honestly look to your left... now look to your right, now look at the contacts list in your phone?? done yet? good now tell me how many out of the people you know and in your vicinity have a touch screen.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 3, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This fact is mind boggling.  Mac OS X should want to be like Windows because Windows has dominated the market for 30 years changing little.  When Windows tries to be like Mac OS X, they bleed customers to Mac OS X.  It is a strategy that is doomed to failure yet, it appears that they still pursue it.  Mind...boggling.



Really not a great analogy for design intents.

The purpose of all UI design should at its heart be usability first. Otherwise, just use a CLI and save the resources.

Apple would never "want to be like windows", because windows presents a role similar to programs that you purchase: It's design cannot maintain transparency to the user. Apple sells a "machine" of which, the experience is to keep the OS transparent to the user, allowing one to do whatever you are doing. It's a fantastic design IMO.

This is definitely influenced by their Windows Phone experiences, but a panel display like that IMO isn't versatile enough for most users, unless it's a stripped down machine (READ: Tablet). I don't care about my stock rates, because I don't have any! The exact same reason I hide default applications on my iPhone.


Now, this bothers me:


> There'll be two kinds of applications for Windows 8, one that runs in a traditional desktop, and the other pseudo-mobile apps based on HTML5 and Javascript...



Apple tried this "web app" idea. It does not work. Stop wasting time now, while you're still in the development phase, Microsoft. Google apps style or native apps only. There is no viable in between, unless you want to run Farmville. These apps do nothing but suck down bandwidth which mobile companies are trying to fight tooth and nail for every bit, provide high computational/battery requirements, and when given the power to properly use hardware, get's full of security flaws.

Back to a UI note, I have noticed uBuntu Unity, Gnome 3, OS X Lion have all been following a glamoury "get to the internet this way" method that I find absolutely disgusting. If this rate keeps up, I'm probably going to be a hardcore XFCE convert.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 3, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> lol i love the qoute touchscreen PCs at home... honestly look to your left... now look to your right, now look at the contacts list in your phone?? done yet? good now tell me how many out of the people you know and in your vicinity have a touch screen.



   it just makes me wanna jab my eyes out with s screw driver ! fuck a phone, and fuck that couch to. I use my phone to make calls, becuase I don't want to squint at the screen while I am trying to handle a bunch of audio tracks.


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (Jun 3, 2011)

^ i like this guy he gets it lol


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 3, 2011)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> If this rate keeps up, I'm probably going to be a hardcore XFCE convert.



agreed. time to start mustering the troops.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 3, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> agreed. time to start mustering the troops.



Time to start demanding choice in operating systems. I don't mean just linux either.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 3, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Time to start demanding choice in operating systems. I don't mean just linux either.



demand a choice in operating systems? do explain...


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 3, 2011)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> If this rate keeps up, I'm probably going to be a hardcore _*LXDE*_ convert.



There i corrected that for you although LXDE i dont think is anywhere near as supported as XFCE is.

Secondly i want to know where it says for definite this is the REAL next PC version of Windows. You are all unfairly judging this exactly like i said before in this thread. I don't want a tablet UI on my PC because it doesn't work but im not bashing this OS until I've seen it and its confirmed its definitely having all those tablet features in the PC version.

With all the jumping to conclusions it reminds me of this quote... "This firm requires no physical-fitness program. Everyone gets enough exercise jumping to conclusions, flying of the handle, running down the boss, flogging dead horses, knifing friends in the back, dodging responsibility and pushing their luck."

EDIT:


Thatguy said:


> Time to start demanding choice in operating systems. I don't mean just linux either.



I dont understand either because there are plenty of choices for operating systems for example: BSD, Linux, Unix and Mac OS... Hell even Amiga OS for PPC.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 3, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> Hell even Amiga OS for PPC.



I'd buy one if I could, but they've disappeared from the website.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 3, 2011)

Captain.Abrecan said:


> The touch screen + media capable interfaces are not Microsoft's way of fucking with everybody.  It is a industry trend.  Industry...trend.  Everybody is doing it.  It works.  It has worked since Zune.  It is simple, it does not require explanation.


Last time I checked, Zune was heading towards a footnote in history.  Again, clone successes, not failures.




Captain.Abrecan said:


> My grandfather can swipe his finger and see the weather.  Done.  I assume the PC can wake from a swipe, seems reasonable.


Touch screens aren't practical for most computer applications.  If people really wanted a touch screen, they'd buy a tablet PC with Windows Mobile on it.  The reason why is quite simple: a 1" gesture on a mouse is 24 times faster than a 1" gesture on a 24" monitor.  Computers are all about efficiency of the operator and when you got a mouse, touch screens simply don't make sense.




Captain.Abrecan said:


> Right now, he has to turn the PC on, wait, log in, wait, double click firefox 12 times, wait, search for google in the google adress bar on his homepage, type in accuweather, wait, type in his zip code, wait, etc etc.  I tried putting apps in his sidebar, but as soon as they pop up with a notification or "please update adobe" he considers it broken, and walks away.  He can't use computers.  People can't use computers.
> PEOPLE NEED THIS UI.


I put a computer together not too long ago for my sister's mother-in-law (~60 years old).  She's never used a computer and, with a little direction, she figured it out pretty quick.  If they design computers around "idiots," they're going to alienate the hundreds of millions of users that aren't "idiots" (their most reliable customers). 


Oh, and businesses still very much shape Windows.  They make up a huge share of Windows purchasers.  I imagine they'll be selling a Windows 8 Business version that has most of the new Windows 8 features disabled/removed.

If anything, Microsoft should start marketing a tablet specific version of Windows and leave the core Windows product alone.  A desktop OS isn't going to be able to compete with mobile-targetted Android and iPad OS and a tablet OS isn't going to be able to compete with Chrome OS, Mac OS X, or *nix.

What concerns me the most is Microsoft doesn't like to maintain "legacy" UIs for long.  If they make tablet UIs standard for the desktop OS, the legacy desktop UI will be phased out in less than 5 years.  I can see that as only spelling disaster for Microsoft.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 3, 2011)

I still vote for seperate "editions" for tablets, HTPCs, and PCs. I don't want one "super edition" with too much bloatware.

I think they should have the following editions:

Normal builds:
Performance editon (like the current windows 7 but highly trimmed down and optimized for gaming and hi-demand applications) (no metro UI interface,uses windows 7 look but improved in a more professional look) (just like the professional edition of windows 7)
Normal home edition (can have aero and aero lite) (comes with full 'standard' stuff and equiv to Home premium) (with metroUI ran like MC is in HP/Ultimate)

HTPC builds:
Theater edition (black or dark metro theme for rooms with the lights out as default but has color modes and themes) (has the presentation like the vid)
TV Edition (has metro UI as default 'base' ran ontop of a minimal 'core' install of windows 8 core edition [serves as basis for all editions and can even be ran seperate for embedded devices]) (this way tvs can run with small SSD for OS and have a laptop HDD built in possibly)

tablet builds:
Tablet notebook edition (like above professional with 'enhanced' metro UI like courier with handwriting focus) (still has access to full OS)
Tablet standard edition (above but more minimal install same as TV version above but better on battery life) (built on 'core' edition)


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 3, 2011)

Remixdcat: you are assuming Windows is actually that flexible and modularized. Which it is not.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 3, 2011)

microsoft has server 2008 core edition.... why couldn't' they do the same with windows 8?
that sucks though how they didn't make it like how I thought it would be.


----------



## Funtoss (Jun 3, 2011)

lol at the comment above me


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 3, 2011)

Then perhaps that (modularity) should be the focus of Windows 7.0.  Let people choose what they want their OS to be without buying one and being committed to it.  As far as I know, that's never been done by any of Microsoft's major competitors.


----------



## AsRock (Jun 3, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> same but from the looks there going for an os ment for everything and less PC focused but i dont see WIndows 8 giving us anything better then windows 7 at least when a PC is concerned.



Because it will have better security  LMAO.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 3, 2011)

Like sony's security


----------



## Captain.Abrecan (Jun 3, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Last time I checked, Zune was heading towards a footnote in history.  Again, clone successes, not failures.



Oh absolutely.  The Zune product suite is a failure.  The Metro UI, however, is not.  Which is what I was talking about, I should have been much more specific, and not mentioned the iPod.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Touch screens aren't practical for most computer applications.  If people really wanted a touch screen, they'd buy a tablet PC with Windows Mobile on it.  The reason why is quite simple: a 1" gesture on a mouse is 24 times faster than a 1" gesture on a 24" monitor.  Computers are all about efficiency of the operator and when you got a mouse, touch screens simply don't make sense.



I also agree that touchscreens are not practical, but take it a step further: what is even more practical than a 1" mouse gesture? The Keyboard.  You can hit a boatload of keys in a few seconds.  I like keyboard input for AutoCAD, it is a good example.  Move the mouse to the line button, click it, move back to model space, click again, etc etc.  or type [L] and slam the spacebar in .5 seconds. TLDR; I think UI improvements should be focused on the mouse and keyboard too, but that is not what is up for discussion here.  We are talking about a UI's capability to deliver content with the least number of steps in a simple interface.  The interface has to look simple in _form_, not actually be simple in it's _function_.



FordGT90Concept said:


> I put a computer together not too long ago for my sister's mother-in-law (~60 years old).  She's never used a computer and, with a little direction, she figured it out pretty quick.  If they design computers around "idiots," they're going to alienate the hundreds of millions of users that aren't "idiots" (their most reliable customers).



Again I believe you are right.  However, this is exactly what has happened.  I believe this is the cause for the large backlash in the tech community (not just this forum) : because the technical user base has been alienated.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Oh, and businesses still very much shape Windows.  They make up a huge share of Windows purchasers.  I imagine they'll be selling a Windows 8 Business version that has most of the new Windows 8 features disabled/removed.



Most likely.  More importantly, it looks like the whole interface is just a new 'start menu' that runs on top of the original desktop.  It can be turned off.



FordGT90Concept said:


> If anything, Microsoft should start marketing a tablet specific version of Windows and leave the core Windows product alone.  A desktop OS isn't going to be able to compete with mobile-targetted Android and iPad OS and a tablet OS isn't going to be able to compete with Chrome OS, Mac OS X, or *nix.



Correct, but what if people want windows to work like windows phone? You need a center to handle media...almost like windows media center. Thanks folks, I'll be here all night.



FordGT90Concept said:


> What concerns me the most is Microsoft doesn't like to maintain "legacy" UIs for long.  If they make tablet UIs standard for the desktop OS, the legacy desktop UI will be phased out in less than 5 years.  I can see that as only spelling disaster for Microsoft.



The only way the desktop UI will be phased out is if this one actually works better for applications.  Let's face it, it probably works the same.  Allow me to explain.  Remember the part of the footage where they showed excel running? It was the same program.  Nothing changed.  The only difference is that there is not a taskbar on the bottom of the screen, which is technically wasted space.  If there was a way to make it disappear when you were not actively switching between programs, then I would hail that as a godsend.  Luckily, that is exactly what this does.  Wanna know what TPU would look like in Windows 8? hit [F11].

It looks like the apps where running in full-screen mode.  Nothing more, nothing less.  There is nothing wrong with that.  It does not detract from the functionality of the program.  It looks like you can have any kind of shortcut on the new UI.  So why not place a shortcut to My Documents on it?  Then the new UI is like your desktop & start menu combined.  Instead of switching to your desktop to see rainmeter (1-click step) your make 1 click to see the app space.  However, you can now access the start menu too, which ordinarily required a separate click.  That last click has been omitted, which from an Aspergers standpoint means the new UI is technically twice as efficient.

This is great, because desktops are wasted space anyways.  It isn't the greatest way to launch applications.  It's like Microsoft took the icons on your desktop, made them better, and then got rid of the background space that you use to make yourself feel better.  Pure functionality.  That's it.  Nothing else.  Attached is what the difference between XP and 8 is (check my mspaint skillz  :


----------



## Mussels (Jun 3, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> This OS is the tablet version,designed for touchscreens the real one comes 2 years later




thank you, sick of seeing this around the web/facebook as if its a desktop OS, when its not.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 3, 2011)

Captain.Abrecan said:


> Correct, but what if people want windows to work like windows phone? You need a center to handle media...almost like windows media center. Thanks folks, I'll be here all night.


If it weren't the best way to play FM Radio and TV, I'd never touch Windows Media Center.  It is clearly targeted at an audience I'm not part of.  I don't want fancy animations with vertical and side scrollers.  I just want to run what I need, when I need it (like, more down the lines of the stereotypical media player).  I've never been a fan of WMC and I doubt I'll ever be.

If people want it to work like a Windows phone, they'll buy Windows Phone 7.





Captain.Abrecan said:


> The only way the desktop UI will be phased out is if this one actually works better for applications.  Let's face it, it probably works the same.  Allow me to explain.  Remember the part of the footage where they showed excel running? It was the same program.  Nothing changed.  The only difference is that there is not a taskbar on the bottom of the screen, which is technically wasted space.  If there was a way to make it disappear when you were not actively switching between programs, then I would hail that as a godsend.  Luckily, that is exactly what this does.  Wanna know what TPU would look like in Windows 8? hit [F11].


The taskbar always shows the time and other running applications.  Both are generally considered very important.  I think hiding the taskbar or trying to minimize it further would harm productivity more so than helping it, ultimately annoying the user.

Windows has had an "auto-hide taskbar" feature since Windows 95.




Captain.Abrecan said:


> It looks like the apps where running in full-screen mode.  Nothing more, nothing less.  There is nothing wrong with that.  It does not detract from the functionality of the program.  It looks like you can have any kind of shortcut on the new UI.  So why not place a shortcut to My Documents on it?  Then the new UI is like your desktop & start menu combined.  Instead of switching to your desktop to see rainmeter (1-click step) your make 1 click to see the app space.  However, you can now access the start menu too, which ordinarily required a separate click.  That last click has been omitted, which from an Aspergers standpoint means the new UI is technically twice as efficient.


Guess you haven't used fullscreen applications much.  If something goes wrong, the Task Manager is the only way to make it go away.  Running applications fullscreen may also be an unnecessary burdern on the graphics adapter.

Fullscreen "detracts" from the functionality of the OS and everything else that is running.  It is anti-multitasking which virtually every computer user does with great frequency.  The only way that wouldn't be a complete disaster is if they revolutionized alt+tab.  Having used alt+tab when two or more fullscreen games are running, I'll tell you, is a pain in the ass.  I have little faith that they'll improve application switching to an extent that it wouldn't be a constant annoyance.

One click means little when it takes longer to figure out where you have to click as opposed to two clicks, in an organized fashion.  Clutter ruins productivity and, by extension, efficiency.




Captain.Abrecan said:


> This is great, because desktops are wasted space anyways.  It isn't the greatest way to launch applications.  It's like Microsoft took the icons on your desktop, made them better, and then got rid of the background space that you use to make yourself feel better.  Pure functionality.  That's it.  Nothing else.  Attached is what the difference between XP and 8 is (check my mspaint skillz  :


The desktop on an OS is the same as desktop in reality.  It is where things to be done wind up so they aren't "out of sight, out of mind."  It's not meant to be an information center or a gateway to applications--that's the role of the taskbar (segregated to ~5% or less of the screen real-estate).

It is not wasted space.  Windows get their namesake for being able to take up only a portion of the screen real-estate granting presistent access to everything on the desktop without minimizing it.  It is a staple of the non-annoying UI--a basic feature they all share.

How annoyed are you when the shortcut to an application you want to start is covered by an open window?  Now imagine this happening all the time.  It no longer takes one click to start an appication, it takes at least two (minimize, then start) with a lot of mouse travel.  The start menu is "always on top" so it takes two clicks with the only exception being a full screen application running.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 3, 2011)

try doing any advanced tasks with a touch screen... I dare you to manage drives or manage a server infrastrcture with a touch screen where they still haven't got the right resolution and precision? 

or try doing 3d modelling or architectural designs.... impossible with metro... 

the way touch screens are these days they are very inaccurate and it's very easy to touch the wrong thing....


----------



## Mussels (Jun 3, 2011)

remixedcat said:


> try doing any advanced tasks with a touch screen... I dare you to manage drives or manage a server infrastrcture with a touch screen where they still haven't got the right resolution and precision?
> 
> or try doing 3d modelling or architectural designs.... impossible with metro...
> 
> the way touch screens are these days they are very inaccurate and it's very easy to touch the wrong thing....



which is exactly why this is for the mobile market.


they arent going to make 24" touch screens for desktops, or 52" touch HDTV/plasmas for HTPC's. people are just getting worked up over nothing.


just because they're making a mobile OS that they're re-using as a media center style interface on desktops, doesnt mean thats all we're getting.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 3, 2011)

I refer you guys to my previous post:



Red_Machine said:


> I would agree, but the guy said "This IS the new version of Windows.  It will run on laptops, desktops, touch-screen PCs and tablets" or words to that effect.  To me, that seals it.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 3, 2011)

Mussels said:


> they arent going to make 24" touch screens for desktops, or 52" touch HDTV/plasmas for HTPC's. people are just getting worked up over nothing.



Were you not on planet earth for the ohhhh almost 2 dozen or so touchscreen desktops. They are called All-in-one PC's and there are a bunch on the market with full touchscreen capabilities.

So will they make a touch screen for desktop...yeah like 2 years ago and continuing.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 3, 2011)

I used those at staples (the sony and the HP one) and they sucked. it was uncomfortable to use those for half an hour I did play around with it. if you use that all the time your arms get tired.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 3, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> I refer you guys to my previous post:



i know, but you're failing to realise that just because someones said it, doesnt mean its 100% fact to all interpretations.


Its been previously stated - by MS - that the mobile version of windows 8 is coming out long before the desktop version is.


This version is for mobiles and tablets/slates


Laughingman: of course i've seen them. they failed. they however were standalone odd products, and not something everyone was forced to use - its one thing for a company to risk a touch based desktop, and another for an OS manufacturer to force it upon everyone.

point in case, those systems sucked and were never popular. MS knows it wont work.


----------



## Captain.Abrecan (Jun 3, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It no longer takes one click to start an appication, it takes at least two (minimize, then start) with a lot of mouse travel.  The start menu is "always on top" so it takes two clicks with the only exception being a full screen application running.



That is an exceptional point, I did not think of that...


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 3, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i know, but you're failing to realise that just because someones said it, doesnt mean its 100% fact to all interpretations.



I've heard it said by people in the industry that know these people that the guy who's now heading up the Windows team has a "don't demo it until it's ready" policy, so I don't think in the unveiling he'd let someone say something like that without it being true or at least their intention.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 3, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> I've heard it said by people in the industry that know these people that the guy who's now heading up the Windows team has a "don't demo it until it's ready" policy, so I don't think in the unveiling he'd let someone say something like that without it being true or at least their intention.



they could well use this core OS with a new GUI as windows 8. there is going to be a wave of x86 tablets as well, in upcoming generations.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 3, 2011)

Windows Phone and Windows/Server are based on separate cores.  It is unlikely they share much in common besides the name.


It has been said that Windows 8 focuses on tablets and yes, it is what is coming to desktops too.  They are not making a separate OS for tablets.  Windows Phone (formerly Windows Mobile) has its own release schedule completely independent from Windows/Server.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Jun 3, 2011)

So Windows 8 is just Windows Media *User* Center?

I don't see how this is going to do well in the corporate/professional environment.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 3, 2011)

I doubt it will be a problem in Windows 8 because Microsoft is leaving the option to go back to the Windows 7 interface.  The concern lies in future releases of Windows beyond 8.  As Microsoft killed the "classic start menu" in Windows 7, it is likely to kill the Windows 7 interface (barely acceptable as is) in Windows 9 or soon after.  That's what irks me.  Microsoft never listens.

I predict Windows 8 is going to receive a very negative reception if it so much as defaults to the tablet layout on non-touchpad devices--just as Windows Vista did before it.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jun 3, 2011)

remixedcat said:


> I used those at staples (the sony and the HP one) and they sucked. it was uncomfortable to use those for half an hour I did play around with it. if you use that all the time your arms get tired.



Yeah, exercise is a bitch at times.



Mussels said:


> Laughingman: of course i've seen them. they failed. they however were standalone odd products, and not something everyone was forced to use - its one thing for a company to risk a touch based desktop, and another for an OS manufacturer to force it upon everyone.
> 
> point in case, those systems sucked and were never popular. MS knows it wont work.



They did not fail as they all had very good sales figures. It is why MSI, Sony, Asus, Dell, etc. continues providing the OPTION <- (this word is important). And why HP is currently advertising their All-in-one PC in a TV commercial.

Microsoft didn't say they were forcing anything on anyone. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from making this an OPTION that you turn on and off.  I don't see any reason why a single OS could not switch between UI's (in this case Aero and Metro). To be plain, the Windows Media Center does not use the same UI as the rest of Windows 7.

Microsoft is just taking time to build an OPTIONAL UI that is better suited and more focused on touch screen and tablet use. Two area's the default Win7 UI seems a bit unwieldy.

And the phrase is "Case in point".


----------



## Frick (Jun 3, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I doubt it will be a problem in Windows 8 because Microsoft is leaving the option to go back to the Windows 7 interface.  The concern lies in future releases of Windows beyond 8.  As Microsoft killed the "classic start menu" in Windows 7, it is likely to kill the Windows 7 interface (barely acceptable as is) in Windows 9 or soon after.  That's what irks me.  Microsoft never listens.
> 
> I predict Windows 8 is going to receive a very negative reception if it so much as defaults to the tablet layout on non-touchpad devices--just as Windows Vista did before it.



I like 7 more than the previous iterations of the GUI and I'm far more productive there than in XP/Vista with classic whatever enabled. With that said, I think MS will eventually move from the current GUI. It's called progression. And I honestly don't think they will be so stupid as to make a desktop OS exactly the same as a tablet OS without any possibilites to change it. It might not be exactly like what it is now, but well things change. Why change what is not broken you ask? We might not think it's broken until we tried new things. As I said above, I like Windows 7 a lot more than what it looked like before and it's to early if to say I will like or dislike future GUI's.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Microsoft never listens.



To whom?

Most people I've met like this new GUI more than classic.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 3, 2011)

Frick said:


> To whom?


Everyone that despised Vista.  They added some sparkle (a different name and minor tweaks to the interface) and pretended it was something brand new.  There's very little to like and a lot to hate.

Everyone I've encountered doesn't care for Windows Vista/7 but they tolerate it because it still better than the alternatives (Mac OS X and *nix) and they must (XP support is wanning).


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 3, 2011)

i really wish game studios would develop popular games for *nix. blah.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 3, 2011)

well hello their im said windows fan i had 95 me xp vista(basic) then win7 ulty and its STILL possible to get a CMD screen up and use the all new start button lmao in the same way as you used too its just more configurable(but the effin same just round), 
the bare truth is they have allways improved it even with vista(imho it was mostly driver issues anyway) yet they have not taken anything away id ever use, and i mess more then most.
 i am just seeing a new and improved media center slapped into the start menu lmao so its all you see at load id wager the start menu button will still bring up the same start menu.

too early to say not really that different its just media center on crack(you can load progs/games str8 from the old one media center i mean,not that i would )


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 3, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> demand a choice in operating systems? do explain...



look up the patato famine, homogonous populations are dangerous and susceptible to failure.



MilkyWay said:


> There i corrected that for you although LXDE i dont think is anywhere near as supported as XFCE is.
> 
> Secondly i want to know where it says for definite this is the REAL next PC version of Windows. You are all unfairly judging this exactly like i said before in this thread. I don't want a tablet UI on my PC because it doesn't work but im not bashing this OS until I've seen it and its confirmed its definitely having all those tablet features in the PC version.
> 
> ...



Try to get drivers and software for anything but linux,mac,windows. When I mean choice I mean at least 10 or more solid Operating systems with a diverse population of applications, kind of how phones are now. The carriers and manufacturers keep the ecosystem diverse, which is a very good thing to do.


----------



## cheesy999 (Jun 3, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> look up the patato famine, homogonous populations are dangerous and susceptible to failure.



its spelt potato actually
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
When i was using XP, i used a vista pc and liked it so much i upgraded, now i'm on vista i used a windows 7 pc and didn't think it was worth the money - windows 8 will only be a success if people use it and think 'you know, i actually quite like this'


----------



## Frick (Jun 3, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Everyone I've encountered doesn't care for Windows Vista/7 but they tolerate it because it still better than the alternatives (Mac OS X and *nix) and they must (XP support is wanning).



Same here ... up until they actually used it instead of whining. What is so bad about it exactly?

And Vista was despised yes, but often unfairly so, and often by people who did not know what to do when their icons didn't look the same and by people who had never actually used it.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 3, 2011)

Frick said:


> Same here ... up until they actually used it instead of whining. What is so bad about it exactly?



+1.  Mojave Experiment, anyone?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 3, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> look up the patato famine, homogonous populations are dangerous and susceptible to failure.



huh? you need to explain your thoughts, not throw around random words and expect other people to do the research for you. explain to me what you mean by demand for operating systems. also, this is the second time im asking you to use the multiquote button....


----------



## D007 (Jun 3, 2011)

If there's no new Directx, then idc...lol


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 3, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> huh? you need to explain your thoughts, not throw around random words and expect other people to do the research for you. explain to me what you mean by demand for operating systems. also, this is the second time im asking you to use the multiquote button....



   Why should I waste my time explaining the problems with large homogonous populations ? The answer is self evident. Its a single point of fialure. I'd take a good bet a very cleverly written worm,virus,trojan if let propogate with a long enough time frame before it became active could eat the whole windows universe of operating system in one fell swoop. 

  That is to say the patato blight of ireland is a great example of why overdepndance on one resource is bad.


  the microsoft monopoly on operating systems is just that, is a single resource failure point.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 3, 2011)

by your definitions of idiocy wouldnt the x86 archetectural dependency of the world also be something awaiting a viralising as a single resource failure point as might be humans over dependancy on walking and generally using our legs, some things you just gota do


----------



## imperialreign (Jun 3, 2011)

I agree with a lot of what has been said here, and I'm a little reserved about the GUI as well (at least if it goes to PC) . . .

. . . but, I see a potential marketing maneuver on MS' part, here.  Considering they've been fighting a steadily growing competitor (Mac), and a 3rd party market that's continuing to grow (linux), going with a mobile-style GUI would make WIN's new OS more "accessible" to the common user . . .

. . . considering the common user has become more familiar with their phone and/or tablet now, and has become an "expert" at using mobile devices (although they still can't figure out how to keep their PC's software and OS updated properly) - presenting an OS with a "familiar" GUI will be targeting users who are heavily dependant on their mobile devices by saying "hey!  Our new OS is as easy to use as your phone!!  It's as stable as your mobile device, too!!"  It'd be easier to sway customers to your product if they're approaching it brand new as being easy to learn, use and navigate.

Sadly, that's one of the issue we currently see in the OS market - WIN has had a stigma attached to it that it's antique, archaic, difficult to use and navigate, prone to bugs and crashes, and vulnerable to security intrusions - this stigma wasn't helped at all by Mac's marketing campaigns the last few years, either, which used these stigmas to claim Macs were better than "PCs" (completely forgetting to mention that Macs are PCs by definition as well).


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 4, 2011)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> by your definitions of idiocy wouldnt the x86 archetectural dependency of the world also be something awaiting a viralising as a single resource failure point as might be humans over dependancy on walking and generally using our legs, some things you just gota do



in fact it is in regards to x86..however if your leg fails there are other methods by which to move around, crawling for instance.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 4, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Why should I waste my time explaining the problems with large homogonous populations ? The answer is self evident. Its a single point of fialure. I'd take a good bet a very cleverly written worm,virus,trojan if let propogate with a long enough time frame before it became active could eat the whole windows universe of operating system in one fell swoop.
> 
> That is to say the patato blight of ireland is a great example of why overdepndance on one resource is bad.
> 
> ...



right, but how does one "demand" choice in this regards? you going to force developers to create a bunch of different operating systems or are you going to allow operating system to grow organically in the market. you are creating a doomsday scenario that has never happened in the tech world. company resources would be better allocated to improving on their code and interfaces.


----------



## a_ump (Jun 4, 2011)

D007 said:


> If there's no new Directx, then idc...lol



fuck a new Directx. I think its fucking ridiculous how quick dx11 got here. It's even more pathetic that there's barely any games coded in dx11 native, when its fucking backwards compatible to dx9. 

Personally, i consider M$ a company that is incredibly intelligent yet amazingly stupid at the same time. I sometimes think the people leading M$'s "forward progression" live in the corporate building they work in, otherwise they'd realize that anymore dx's is a waste of time.  

It's pretty sad, but i really do believe that not a single video game company cares what M$ releases. It's been since Dx9 that a Dx was actually used and exploited decently. Now every dam game is so compatible across the market, it actually sucks bc it doesn't take advantage of various specific platforms' potential. Crysis 2 being the prime example recently...it was expected to kickass, instead it sucks ass as its worse than the first.

More OT: Another OS release in the near future would be almost as stupid as another dx version. They may add some great features, but who's going to use them within the first year? less than 10% of their current market more than likely. I personally would want my consumer base to be spread across 4 diff OS's if i owned M$. It almost seems like M$ just want to say "Look what we made/can do!" but don't care that they're losing touch with their consumer base.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 4, 2011)

what does taters have to do with an operating system?


----------



## Mussels (Jun 4, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> look up the patato famine, homogonous populations are dangerous and susceptible to failure.
> 
> 
> 
> Try to get drivers and software for anything but linux,mac,windows. When I mean choice I mean at least 10 or more solid Operating systems with a diverse population of applications, kind of how phones are now. The carriers and manufacturers keep the ecosystem diverse, which is a very good thing to do.



android, iOS, Symbian? even less choices there.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 4, 2011)

A_ump: Blane xp cavemen and consoles for that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 4, 2011)

Frick said:


> Same here ... up until they actually used it instead of whining. What is so bad about it exactly?


The start menu is huge, images instead of text when applications are stacked is inefficient productivity wise, sorting alphabetically and horizontally with no option to change it in the control panel, no way to customize searches (limit search location, hidden/unhidden files, search system files, etc.), forcing developers to adopt the Game Explorer which is implemented in a way that no one wants to use it (errors easily and overcomplicates adding games--sometimes impossible to remove without 3rd party software/registry hacks), the inability to see all options under the start programs menu at once--it packs it all into a tiny window, and have you ever tried to find a specific setting in Windows 7/Vista?  Even when XP came out, I never found myself searching for a setting for 15 minutes because it is where you expect it to be.  Not under a tiny link, under a tiny, link, under an inobvious link, under a tiny link, etc.  It seems they heavily nested all the major settings so people would give up looking for them before they are found.

That's only the tip of the iceberg of UI issues that are a permanent staple of Windows 7 (no option to go back).

I've been using Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit on my main system for at least a year now.  I still prefer the interface of Server 2003 R2 x64 Edition on my server with classic start menu enabled.




Red_Machine said:


> +1.  Mojave Experiment, anyone?


That was an advertising campaign.  It was unscientific (only compared people's opinion of the OS before and after viewing a video) and no one "reviewed" actually used the OS.  Not to mention, they "cherry-picked" the positive reviews (namely, people that are easily impressed).  As they say, "never judge a book by its cover."


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 4, 2011)

I love my server 2008 R1 UI. it's perfect for me. Even rockin the steelflash 100K final theme....

metro is the new xp luna UI.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 4, 2011)

remixedcat said:


> I love my server 2008 R1 UI. it's perfect for me. Even rockin the steelflash 100K final theme....
> 
> metro is the new xp luna UI.



No. It's separate shell. It's not a theme. This is like Litestep and it will run along side explorer.exe.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 4, 2011)

yeah I knew that. I just was saying how I love my interface the way it is LOL.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 4, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> right, but how does one "demand" choice in this regards? you going to force developers to create a bunch of different operating systems or are you going to allow operating system to grow organically in the market. you are creating a doomsday scenario that has never happened in the tech world. company resources would be better allocated to improving on their code and interfaces.



This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree, first thing on the list. Breakup microsoft, demonopolize them. Thats the first step, the rest will happen on its own.One of the other things that could go a long way, kill software patents as we know them and redesign teh system to make sense. 

 Those 2 items would break the alternatives open rather quickly. Also mandate by law if needed no OS is to have more then 15% market share in a for profit scenario. 

 Non profits are a entirely different matter. Applications, who cares. Posix could be a very powerful tool, if the monopoly was ended. 

 it'd piss off some greedy corporate bastards, but fuck em, they don't mind doing you first.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 4, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree, first thing on the list. Breakup microsoft, demonopolize them. Thats the first step, the rest will happen on its own.One of the other things that could go a long way, kill software patents as we know them and redesign teh system to make sense.
> 
> Those 2 items would break the alternatives open rather quickly. Also mandate by law if needed no OS is to have more then 15% market share in a for profit scenario.
> 
> ...


 And I want to make the world flat.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 4, 2011)

pr0n Inspector said:


> And I want to make the world flat.



Thats called making the world round. It is currently flat and inovation is stifled by the microsoft monopoly. they control the entire PC market.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 4, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree, first thing on the list. Breakup microsoft, demonopolize them. Thats the first step, the rest will happen on its own.One of the other things that could go a long way, kill software patents as we know them and redesign teh system to make sense.
> 
> Those 2 items would break the alternatives open rather quickly. Also mandate by law if needed no OS is to have more then 15% market share in a for profit scenario.
> 
> ...



that is a terrible idea. businesses operate the best when fully homogenized. it makes purchasing computers easier, tech support for them easier, deployment and use of software easier. business to business relies heavily on that kind of interoperability as well. microsoft is a very well run company for being as large as it is. using government force to break it up would lead to chaos in the industry as corporations pay bribes to politicians to hold a piece of the pie for them. when they broke up AT&T back in the 80s there was already a bunch of competing companies with fully interoperable infrastructures set up. you are taking away consumer choice by using government force on business. instead, let microsoft continue to innovate and use its leverage to make a profit (that's what businesses are supposed to do). the game is just beginning afterall. look at google and the inroads it has made despite microsofts dominance. the tech market is the most open market in the world and you can see how quickly innovation happens. i say keep the government's grubby mitts off my tech!


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 4, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> that is a terrible idea. businesses operate the best when fully homogenized. it makes purchasing computers easier, tech support for them easier, deployment and use of software easier. business to business relies heavily on that kind of interoperability as well. microsoft is a very well run company for being as large as it is. using government force to break it up would lead to chaos in the industry as corporations pay bribes to politicians to hold a piece of the pie for them. when they broke up AT&T back in the 80s there was already a bunch of competing companies with fully interoperable infrastructures set up. you are taking away consumer choice by using government force on business. instead, let microsoft continue to innovate and use its leverage to make a profit (that's what businesses are supposed to do). the game is just beginning afterall. look at google and the inroads it has made despite microsofts dominance. the tech market is the most open market in the world and you can see how quickly innovation happens. i say keep the government's grubby mitts off my tech!



   Your deluded. Microsoft has already illegally become a monopoly. the breakup of microsoft would usher in some new ideas, designs and likely a better computing experience. Profits aren't everything, at some point humanity needs what it needs and a homognous operating system culture and software ecosystem are not good for us all. Not only that, but theres nothing wrong with open document formats, open interface standards etc. Those are the things that count. 

  thats how the computing world could be better. Open standards and compliance. It give the people writing the applications alot of freedom to innovate while flattening the data to a something everyone can acess.

  I am sick of hearing about profits, I own a bussiness. I get "profit" but microsoft isn't out to make a fiar profit. They illegally got where they are by destroying everything around them. This isn't some conspiracy idea, its the way they do bussiness.  

  software patents are dubious ground, look at patent troll mpegla. what a bunch of douche nozzles. 

   these are the thing destroying innovation. Microsoft must be broken up, they aren't pushing tech. They are cuasing it to stagnate.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 4, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Your deluded. Microsoft has already illegally become a monopoly. the breakup of microsoft would usher in some new ideas, designs and likely a better computing experience. Profits aren't everything, at some point humanity needs what it needs and a homognous operating system culture and software ecosystem are not good for us all. Not only that, but theres nothing wrong with open document formats, open interface standards etc. Those are the things that count.
> 
> thats how the computing world could be better. Open standards and compliance. It give the people writing the applications alot of freedom to innovate while flattening the data to a something everyone can acess.
> 
> ...



Point to real world evidence that demonstrates breaking up a massive tech company will lead to increased innovation and then you have an argument.  Until then you are simply spouting socialist garbage. Your ideas fail in the real world. Google has thrived despite Microsoft. The open-source movement has grown tremendously in the past 10 years despite Microsoft. Apple has grown incredibly thanks to Jobs despite Microsoft. All of this anti-Microsoft talk is demagoguery from the anti-business crowd who wish to take away consumer choice under the guise of social justice and wealth redistribution.


----------



## Red_Machine (Jun 4, 2011)

@Thatguy: You ignorant jackass.  The industry depends on Microsoft, it would collapse if it was broken up.

Dell would have to start selling more Linux PCs, which nobody would buy and the remaining Windows PCs would be bought up within weeks.  Dell's bankruptcy would shortly follow.  During and after this, the rest of the OEM PC companies would follow suit.
nVidia would go bankrupt, AMD would go bankrupt and in all likelihood Intel would go bankrupt too.
Apple would either have to switch back to PowerPC CPUs, but I doubt that's possible anymore, or they would go bankrupt, too.

Within a year of Microsoft being broken up, the PC industry would cease to exist.  Where would the innovation come from then?


----------



## jpierce55 (Jun 4, 2011)

Yeah, it looks like Windows for Facebook and Youtube. It looks like an Ipad system ripoff. It looks like a resource hog that will surely strain older systems. It will keep the g-card warm.

For those of us used to a pc we probably won't like it. For those of us who game, we aren't going to like it. OLDER PEOPLE who are scared of computers will probably feel more comfortable with it because of the visuals.


----------



## Frick (Jun 4, 2011)

jpierce55 said:


> Yeah, it looks like Windows for Facebook and Youtube. It looks like an Ipad system ripoff. It looks like a resource hog that will surely strain older systems. It will keep the g-card warm.



Ipad ripoff how? And what do you base that resource hog claim on? It looks like a UI made for tablets which are pretty low powered to begin with.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 4, 2011)

That guy(ha) sounded like a agitated communist spouting the same old crap from a century ago.





Frick said:


> Ipad ripoff how? And what do you base that resource hog claim on? It looks like a UI made for tablets which are pretty low powered to begin with.



You want to run a full OS under that shell on processors that are weaker than Atom?


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 5, 2011)

and try runnin that on a 200 dollar tablet? not happenin.


----------



## Neuromancer (Jun 5, 2011)

remixedcat said:


> and try runnin that on a 200 dollar tablet? not happenin.



$200 doesn't get you a smartphone (with out a 2 year contract and $30 dollar a month data plan on top of $50 a month basic package).. why would it buy you a decent tablet?



pr0n Inspector said:


> That guy(ha) sounded like a agitated communist spouting the same old crap from a century ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually the new ARM processors should be more capable than the ATOM.  The ATOM was a suck-cess because it failed to include Out of order processing which everything has done since the Pentium was introduced.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 5, 2011)

well there's some 200-250 dollar droid tablets on tigerdirect and newegg and I was wondering how MS is gonna compete with those. or if they are gonna bother or pull an apple and release windows phone 7 and put it on those like apple did with the ipad and ios. that would actually be better for lower end tablets imo than a full os meant for ALL PLATFORMS.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 5, 2011)

Neuromancer: Atom isn't sitting idle either. Intel is shrinking it like there's no tomorrow.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 5, 2011)

What's scary is some hosting companies are using Atom procesors. Not a good thing.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 5, 2011)

pr0n Inspector said:


> That guy(ha) sounded like a agitated communist spouting the same old crap from a century ago.
> 
> You want to run a full OS under that shell on processors that are weaker than Atom?





Easy Rhino said:


> Point to real world evidence that demonstrates breaking up a massive tech company will lead to increased innovation and then you have an argument.  Until then you are simply spouting socialist garbage. Your ideas fail in the real world. Google has thrived despite Microsoft. The open-source movement has grown tremendously in the past 10 years despite Microsoft. Apple has grown incredibly thanks to Jobs despite Microsoft. All of this anti-Microsoft talk is demagoguery from the anti-business crowd who wish to take away consumer choice under the guise of social justice and wealth redistribution.



I find it funny when the socialist arguments come out. Most people don't even know what socialism means. But.. i think politics is against forum rules. It just annoys me when people living on a certian continent label certain things as socialist, when they are not.

May i point out that both google and apple have done well in *growing markets*. They have by no means taken a sizable amount of microsoft's market share. The % market share that competitors have taken does not reduce microsoft profits, microsoft has only been getting bigger, as would be expected in a growing market.
It would be quite strange if a single company was to be able to corner multiple markets in the way being discussed. To see how big an advantage microsoft really have, you'd have to wait until the market stopped growing, and then see which company took dominance.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 6, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> @Thatguy: You ignorant jackass.  The industry depends on Microsoft, it would collapse if it was broken up.
> 
> Dell would have to start selling more Linux PCs, which nobody would buy and the remaining Windows PCs would be bought up within weeks.  Dell's bankruptcy would shortly follow.  During and after this, the rest of the OEM PC companies would follow suit.
> nVidia would go bankrupt, AMD would go bankrupt and in all likelihood Intel would go bankrupt too.
> ...




   Thats such a total and utter amount of BS, the pc industry would function just fine, very likely it would function alot better. you can't have competition with a monopoly and you certainly can't have competition when the goverment is picking winners and lossers, BTW microsofts largest customer is the US goverment from the local to federal level. 

  Your doomsday scenario just isn't feasable anyways. first of all legacy OS carry over would keep current systems up for some time. 

   Imagine if there was one car company, you could only buy a GM vehicle, and you could only get a chevette and the only options you could get where leather or cloth interior with or without cassete player. 

  Thats what the market is today, Calling me a socialist for wanting to break up a monopoly which is essentiall socialist, is a redherring and maybe you should try using a dictionary. Socialism has nothing to do with breaking up monopolys. In fact its is healthy for a free market system to be free of monopolys not the other way around.You get no competition with a monopoly, who is microsoft going to compete with right now ? 

   Your problem is that you buy into alot of propoganda that simply isn't true.Intel should likely have been broken up years ago as well.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 6, 2011)

thing is would you rather have several smaller-medium sized companies making only a few products each, but were extremely high quality and nice.... or would you rather have a few huge companies that make mediocre products...? take your pick?


----------



## Wile E (Jun 6, 2011)

@Thatguy - Microsoft isn't a monopoly. Your argument is flawed.



remixedcat said:


> thing is would you rather have several smaller-medium sized companies making only a few products each, but were extremely high quality and nice.... or would you rather have a few huge companies that make mediocre products...? take your pick?


No, you would just have a bunch more medium sized companies still making mediocre products.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 6, 2011)

I think the argument for breaking Microsoft up is a valid on and this is why.

If Microsoft were to be broken up into different companies, (i.e. their internet browser into 1 company, antivirus into another, office into another and so on..  not breaking microsoft up into multiple companies doing the same thing) then if one campany were to produce poor results, or a poor product, it would be allowed to/forced to fail. 

As things are, if a certian division of microsoft were to produce a piece of crap and actually make a loss, the corporation could soak up those losses and still push their product. This gives them an advantage that not many smaller companies have. The ability to produce a pos piece of software and still be able to profit from it.

I think people believe it would make to market more competitive because as things stand, certian divisions of microsoft are under no pressure to innovate or produce quality pieces of software when they can be supported by their successful products.

It is also a little unfair, as when you install a microsoft piece of software, you automatically get the other microsoft crap. You install Windows 7, and you get IE8 + Bing. You install IE8 and you get MS Messenger etc. Now for us, this is not an issue as we can uninstall what we don't want (how many people actually use IE8?) But for the every day user, they will stick with that product forever.

I don't think that breaking microsoft up would be bad at all, their successful products would still turn profit for the companies and continue to improve, but their pieces of crap software would be allowed to die leaving the market open for new competitors and forcing innovation.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 6, 2011)

silkstone said:


> I think the argument for breaking Microsoft up is a valid on and this is why.
> 
> If Microsoft were to be broken up into different companies, (i.e. their internet browser into 1 company, antivirus into another, office into another and so on..  not breaking microsoft up into multiple companies doing the same thing) then if one campany were to produce poor results, or a poor product, it would be allowed to/forced to fail.
> 
> ...


The popularity of their N editions of Windows suggest that people are just fine having a browser and media player bundled. There is absolutely nothing wrong with bundling these things with your OS. Almost all OSes do this.

Splitting MS up is not going to help individuals that just want their computer to work without any effort (which accounts for the vast majority). If it's good enough for them, then your point is moot. They don't need to look at alternatives. If the bundled software is not good enough, MS does not stop them from using alternatives.

MS is not a monopoly. They shouldn't be punished because they simply have superior marketing.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Splitting MS up is not going to help individuals that just want their computer to work without any effort (which accounts for the vast majority).


...and there's zero chance of that happening now that Apple is raking in more money than Microsoft.  Apple is under greater threat of being broken up (namely, breaking off iPhone and iPod products into separate businesses) than Microsoft now.

Oh, we can't forget their monopolistic practices of requiring that iPhone apps be purchased directly from them too.  From what I hear, Apple has a more zealous court of lawyers than Microsoft does these days suing for everything that remotely resembles iBlasphemy.


Microsoft's only wildly successful product these days is Windows and they spend billions of dollars every year to keep it that way.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 6, 2011)

There will always be a group of people who believe that successful companies are only successful because they are somehow gaming the system. You cannot convince those people otherwise.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 6, 2011)

There are certain practices that are illegal which "bar entry" into the market (e.g. price fixing and buying out competitors); however, the federal government hasn't had any major anti-trust legal battles for a long time.  Me thinks it is because they're just as corrupt as the rest of our worthless government.

At the same time, the EU practically put Microsoft in this situation because of their ludacris fines.  Where the US government doesn't pursue anti-trust enough, the EU pursues it too readily to fill their own coffers.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> The popularity of their N editions of Windows suggest that people are just fine having a browser and media player bundled. There is absolutely nothing wrong with bundling these things with your OS. Almost all OSes do this.
> 
> Splitting MS up is not going to help individuals that just want their computer to work without any effort (which accounts for the vast majority). If it's good enough for them, then your point is moot. They don't need to look at alternatives. If the bundled software is not good enough, MS does not stop them from using alternatives.



I assume people are just fine with it as they have no choice. If they were broken up, i'm sure the install of windows N would give an option as to which Media player, web browser etc could be installed at no additional effort for the end user, at the end of the day, they have to install the OS, a couple of extra clicks choosing which software components they would like installed wouldn't be a problem. I'm not saying that they shouldn't bundle any extras with their OS, just that they should give users a choice. Not just microsoft but all OS'



Wile E said:


> MS is not a monopoly. They shouldn't be punished because they simply have superior marketing.



That's the point, they don't have to do any marketing for most of their products as they come as default and are a pain in the ass. I wish there were a way to uninstall IE, WMP, etc as they cause me no end of problems.

You are right in that they are not a monopoly, but again, that's only because the market is still growing. whether they "should" be broken up or not, i don't know, but my opinion is that if they were, it would be beneficial to the end user, not all gloom and doom like is the opinion of some other users.



Easy Rhino said:


> There will always be a group of people who believe that successful companies are only successful because they are somehow gaming the system. You cannot convince those people otherwise.



It's not black and white, i would say microsoft on a whole was so successful due to the innovation and quality of some of it's products. If you were to think of why IE is so successful, could you say it was because of the quality of the product and that the market share IE holds is purely due to it being better than it's competition?


----------



## Wile E (Jun 6, 2011)

silkstone said:


> I assume people are just fine with it *as they have no choice.* If they were broken up, i'm sure the install of windows N would give an option as to which Media player, web browser etc could be installed at no additional effort for the end user, at the end of the day, they have to install the OS, a couple of extra clicks choosing which software components they would like installed wouldn't be a problem. I'm not saying that they shouldn't bundle any extras with their OS, just that they should give users a choice. Not just microsoft but all OS'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They have whatever choice they want. The only way they couldn't have a choice, is if MS prevented people from installing other choices. MS doesn't do this, therefore, they aren't doing anything wrong. Promoting your brand thru bundles is not illegal; hell, it's not even unethical. It's just sound business practice, and common sense.

Breaking MS apart would be nothing more than punishing them for being successful.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 6, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Promoting your brand thru bundles is not illegal; hell, it's not even unethical. It's just sound business practice, and common sense.



So are other companies allowed to bundle their software with windows 7 in a single custom installation? For example would google be allowed to produce a "windows 7 google edition"? which would install google software and omit microsoft software?
They do not bar you from installing additional software, but they do not give you a choice on install. Microsoft's web browser is successful due to the ignorance of some people not knowing how to or even if they can install a different option. Bear in mind, that the people who do not want to use "all" MS software still have to pay for it via the bundle.

Give me a Cheaper windows 7, which is just an OS where i am not paying for the development of software that i don't want or use any day of the week.

Microsoft do give you the ability to install 3rd party software, but they don't give you a choice on whether you want to pay for bundled software that you don't want.

An example, if MS were split up into different companies, you could have different "flavors" of their OS. One more expensive version containing the "complete MS" package. A cheaper version with 3rd part software, or a bare bones edition. If the full version sold well enough then that would be generating money for their other software divisions and then would flourish on their own. However, if their full edition did not generate any sales, there would be little/no revenue for their other software allowing them to fail. Obviously that is just a basic system and is probably full of holes, but it's the idea that i want to get across.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 6, 2011)

It would be a cold day in hell if Windows is reduced to a pile of drivers. Should be fun to watch average Joes scrambling to tick boxes in a repository-like system.





silkstone said:


> So are other companies allowed to bundle their software with windows 7 in a single custom installation? For example would google be allowed to produce a "windows 7 google edition"? which would install google software and omit microsoft software?
> They do not bar you from installing additional software, but they do not give you a choice on install. Microsoft's web browser is successful due to the ignorance of some people not knowing how to or even if they can install a different option. Bear in mind, that the people who do not want to use "all" MS software still have to pay for it via the bundle.
> 
> Give me a Cheaper windows 7, which is just an OS where i am not paying for the development of software that i don't want or use any day of the week.
> ...


That one is easy. Microsoft buys Google and then Google can use Microsoft's trademarks and properties.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 6, 2011)

pr0n Inspector said:


> It would be a cold day in hell if Windows is reduced to a pile of drivers. Should be fun to watch average Joes scrambling to tick boxes in a repository-like system.



Your assuming the average user doesn't have the intelligence to make his own choices, that is a slippery slope as a line of argument. While for some people it would be difficult the situation is changing and people are becoming more tech savvy. You would have people stick with the same system forever? Keeping them uneducated and ignorant?

It wouldn't even have to work that way. I'm sure there would be different possibilities over the user going through a plethora of option on to what software they want to install. I'm sure that their could even be a "joe Bloggs" edition in which the only thing a user had to do would be to enter the serial. The end user could be given the option before he buys, and at the end of the day, more choice is a good thing.


----------



## caleb (Jun 6, 2011)

Since corporations are now migrating to win7 there wont be any revolt for a few years. 
Tablets are the future for regular users and Id expect the new windows to finally show us what a tablet can do. Why would they care about gaming as thats a pretty safe market for windows as long as DirectX stays closed source and windows 7 works flawlessly anyway ?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 6, 2011)

silkstone said:


> So are other companies allowed to bundle their software with windows 7 in a single custom installation? For example would google be allowed to produce a "windows 7 google edition"? which would install google software and omit microsoft software?



sure if microsoft thought it would benefit microsoft more than it would benefit google. microsoft owns and controls windows. you do not own or control windows. you buy a license to use it under a set of conditions. you did not create windows, you have no say over how the company runs.



> They do not bar you from installing additional software, but they do not give you a choice on install. Microsoft's web browser is successful due to the ignorance of some people not knowing how to or even if they can install a different option. Bear in mind, that the people who do not want to use "all" MS software still have to pay for it via the bundle.



huh? internet explorer is not revenue generating for microsoft. microsoft uses it however to push MSN and other microsoft products. big deal. that is business. google is a major backer of mozilla, a not-for profit company. but i dont see anyone here going after mozilla for accepting massive donations from google to help push google's search engine over bing. 



> Give me a Cheaper windows 7, which is just an OS where i am not paying for the development of software that i don't want or use any day of the week.



if there were a REAL demand for something like that, a demand that could give microsoft a profit then that option would exist. but here you are stamping your foot like a child who wants something he can not have. just because YOU want it doesnt mean one of the most powerful corporations in the world is going to spend its resources pleasing just you. you need a demand of hundreds of thousands thank you very much.



> Microsoft do give you the ability to install 3rd party software, but they don't give you a choice on whether you want to pay for bundled software that you don't want.



you have a choice, use microsoft or use something else. 



> An example, if MS were split up into different companies, you could have different "flavors" of their OS. One more expensive version containing the "complete MS" package. A cheaper version with 3rd part software, or a bare bones edition. If the full version sold well enough then that would be generating money for their other software divisions and then would flourish on their own. However, if their full edition did not generate any sales, there would be little/no revenue for their other software allowing them to fail. Obviously that is just a basic system and is probably full of holes, but it's the idea that i want to get across.



if you want options in your operating system then choose linux. its membership has been growing by leaps and bounds despite microsoft.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 6, 2011)

silkstone said:


> So are other companies allowed to bundle their software with windows 7 in a single custom installation? For example would google be allowed to produce a "windows 7 google edition"? which would install google software and omit microsoft software?
> They do not bar you from installing additional software, but they do not give you a choice on install. Microsoft's web browser is successful due to the ignorance of some people not knowing how to or even if they can install a different option. Bear in mind, that the people who do not want to use "all" MS software still have to pay for it via the bundle.
> 
> Give me a Cheaper windows 7, which is just an OS where i am not paying for the development of software that i don't want or use any day of the week.
> ...



Your choice on install comes from selecting a different product. It's quite simple, if you don't like it, don't use it. There are plenty of alternatives to Windows. If it were not what the majority wanted, they would be forced to change the practice. The majority does not care, and they cater to the majority, which make perfect business sense. They shouldn't be forced to expend more R&D on different "flavors" of an OS to cater to a minority. It would cost them more money, cost us more money, and create more confusion in the market. I think linux is proof enough of that. Sure, there's a flavor for anything you could imagine, but look at the compatibility issues and general confusion to average users that it causes.

MS is a business. As a business, it makes more sense for them to bundle it all together from not only an R&D, marketing and materials standpoint, but also to benefit the average consumer. The fact that we are going to these touch screen interfaces and they are becoming popular only reinforces the fact that the general public doesn't want choices, they just want shit to work out of the box, and look good doing it. Simple, bundled choices are only a bad thing for power users, who generally know how to get around the issues anyway, making the entire issue a moot point. You are not forced to use any MS products.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 6, 2011)

You see, in a perfect world an OS is a kernel and a bunch of drivers. Everything on top is free for you to choose. Starting from the most basic tools e.g. coreutils. In this perfect world, you NEVER have to worry about compatibility of proprietary software from half a dozen different companies. In this perfect world everyone allows everyone to use and include their software in their own idea of perfect OS without having to worry about licensing issues. In this perfect world there are no walls between different products.
In this perfect world I can marry two unicorns.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 6, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> sure if microsoft thought it would benefit microsoft more than it would benefit google. microsoft owns and controls windows. you do not own or control windows. you buy a license to use it under a set of conditions. you did not create windows, you have no say over how the company runs.



Of course microsoft does what will benifit microsoft most, not the end user.



Easy Rhino said:


> huh? internet explorer is not revenue generating for microsoft. microsoft uses it however to push MSN and other microsoft products. big deal. that is business. google is a major backer of mozilla, a not-for profit company. but i dont see anyone here going after mozilla for accepting massive donations from google to help push google's search engine over bing.



No, because that isn't the topic. The discussion thus far has been limited to microsoft. I would have actually assumed that google was a bigger backer of chrome




Easy Rhino said:


> if there were a REAL demand for something like that, a demand that could give microsoft a profit then that option would exist. but here you are stamping your foot like a child who wants something he can not have. just because YOU want it doesnt mean one of the most powerful corporations in the world is going to spend its resources pleasing just you. you need a demand of hundreds of thousands thank you very much.



I am not "stamping my foot like a child" no where in my posts have i been crying over this. Just pointing out that microsoft have an (unfair) advantage over their competitors due to their position in the market. How would you know if there were demand for something when there is no option for it? I also don't see how it would cost the company a great deal of money, apart from in lost revenue due to people having the option not to buy the bundled products.



Easy Rhino said:


> you have a choice, use microsoft or use something else.



You're whole argument is "if you don't like it gtfo", like it's a crime to want change.
Again, you don't have a choice whether or not you pay for the options you do not need/want



Easy Rhino said:


> if you want options in your operating system then choose linux. its membership has been growing by leaps and bounds despite microsoft.



Yes and many people do choose linux due to this fact - there is your demand. I'm just saying that it would be nice if microsoft made an os that was just that, an os not a bundle.



Wile E said:


> Your choice on install comes from selecting a different product. It's quite simple, if you don't like it, don't use it. There are plenty of alternatives to Windows. If it were not what the majority wanted, they would be forced to change the practice. The majority does not care, and they cater to the majority, which make perfect business sense. They shouldn't be forced to expend more R&D on different "flavors" of an OS to cater to a minority. It would cost them more money, cost us more money, and create more confusion in the market. I think linux is proof enough of that. Sure, there's a flavor for anything you could imagine, but look at the compatibility issues and general confusion to average users that it causes.



I don't see many alternatives to windows tbh if you want an OS that is compatible with the latest hardware and games. I think the majority would actually care if they realized what the price difference would be between pure os + 3rd party software vs os + bundled microsoft products. Remember the majority of users is not The US. I don;t see how it would cost the corporation a great deal of money to "cut" features out of their OS, apart from in terms of lost revenue as there would be less people paying for the stuff they are forced to pay for.




Wile E said:


> MS is a business. As a business, it makes more sense for them to bundle it all together from not only an R&D, marketing and materials standpoint, but also to benefit the average consumer. The fact that we are going to these touch screen interfaces and they are becoming popular only reinforces the fact that the general public doesn't want choices, they just want shit to work out of the box, and look good doing it. Simple, bundled choices are only a bad thing for power users, who generally know how to get around the issues anyway, making the entire issue a moot point. You are not forced to use any MS products.



True, not many people are experienced, but that trend is changing, as people get more and more tech savvy they understand more about computers and software. By keeping options limited it keeps users uninformed. At the current point in time, maybe it does make more sense just to bundle everything and treat every one as idiots, but i can see that being different in the future.

My only issue is that at the moment MS can basically generate sales on bad products through bundling their software with their OS which no other product can do to the same extent.

I'm not saying anything they are doing is illegal or bad business practice, i am neither a law student nor a business major. All i am saying is that being able to buy a single product from the company would be a change for the better. Like buying a laptop from Acer without having to pay for an installed OS or buying a telephone without being limited to a single service provider. But you have to make the distinction between OS, Web browser, Media player, etc. to understand the example.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 6, 2011)

Your post illustrates why Windows is still the biggest OS on earth: you tell yourself you want alternatives but in the end you still can't give up the hardware and software support of Windows, which is of course due to it being the largest platform.

To put it bluntly, you are a wuss, you run back to Windows the moment you need those proprietary drivers and games.


----------



## Frick (Jun 6, 2011)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Your post illustrates why Windows is still the biggest OS on earth: you tell yourself you want alternatives but in the end you still can't give up the hardware and software support of Windows, which is of course due to it being the largest platform.
> 
> To put it bluntly, you are a wuss, you run back to Windows the moment you need those proprietary drivers and games.



Hey, I actually agree with you!

BTW, IE is just a money drain for Microsoft afaik as they have to provide support for it.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 6, 2011)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Your post illustrates why Windows is still the biggest OS on earth: you tell yourself you want alternatives but in the end you still can't give up the hardware and software support of Windows, which is of course due to it being the largest platform.
> 
> To put it bluntly, you are a wuss, you run back to Windows the moment you need those proprietary drivers and games.



Thank you for your reasonable and logical argument, using microsoft for gaming makes me a wuss. Turning to personal insults really bring your point across.

I have a view, you have yours, your unwillingness to accept or respect that i have an opinion really shows the kind of person you are.

To this point i have been understanding of different views and willing to concede that MS business strategy suits 90% of customers needs (at an overinflated price). I am sure that will change in future and imo the sooner the better. 

I use Microsoft on my main rig as i use it for, guess what, gaming. I use ubuntu on my laptop due to not wanting to pay $200 for crap i don't need.



Frick said:


> BTW, IE is just a money drain for Microsoft afaik as they have to provide support for it.



And who do you think those costs get passed onto? 
That is my whole point, if it is a money drain they have an advantage that they can continue to force an unsuccessful product onto consumers and force them to pay for it.




pr0n Inspector said:


> In this perfect world everyone allows everyone to use and include their software in their own idea of perfect OS without having to worry about licensing issues. In this perfect world there are no walls between different products.



No one was asking for that, but that's what the future may be. Who know? the IT industry is a relatively new one and continually evolving. But in your opinion it's wrong to question or ask for more? Wrong to wish for something better? Man, you should probably go live in a hermit republic, you'd fit in a treat.



pr0n Inspector said:


> which is of course due to it being the largest platform.



It is the only platform for doing certain things, i.e. gaming. which is where they get some of their advantage.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 6, 2011)

silkstone said:


> You're whole argument is "if you don't like it gtfo", like it's a crime to want change.Again, you don't have a choice whether or not you pay for the options you do not need/want



my whole argument is that when it comes to down to "demand for choice," you can either start a grass roots movement like the open source movement, go around microsoft by creating office apps and a new operating system using a search engine like google or you can get some corrupt politician to make an underhanded deal to paint microsoft as the bad guy and have them broken up simply because you are either too stupid or too lazy to compete. unfortunately the third option is the most popular.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 6, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> my whole argument is that when it comes to down to "demand for choice," you can either start a grass roots movement like the open source movement, go around microsoft by creating office apps and a new operating system using a search engine like google or you can get some corrupt politician to make an underhanded deal to paint microsoft as the bad guy and have them broken up simply because you are either too stupid or too lazy to compete. unfortunately the third option is the most popular.



If we were talking about only the "OS Market" then i might agree. However, i'm thinking more along the lines of pay for "video player" kind of things, where other products find it difficult to enter a market where they have already paid for the "free" movie player that comes with windows X.


----------



## erixx (Jun 6, 2011)

lol.

I respect choices, what makes me angry is the 'evangelists' crowd (only a USA'er could ever have invented such a ridiculous church term for a job, btw): apple evangelists, linux evangelists, sony evangelists... and we also have balmer, lol

BTW: saying MS is expensive is willingly misleading. Nearly nobody needs Ultimate. A Home license UPGRADE costs 90 €. Their mouses and keybaords are also very well made and priced


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 6, 2011)

silkstone said:


> If we were talking about only the "OS Market" then i might agree. However, i'm thinking more along the lines of pay for "video player" kind of things, where other products find it difficult to enter a market where they have already paid for the "free" movie player that comes with windows X.



why in the hell would you build a video player and charge for it when it does the exact same thing as a free one? that is a terrible business move. you shouldnt want to support bad business decisions. WMP is crap anyway. VLC is the best and it is free.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 6, 2011)

erixx said:


> lol.
> 
> I respect choices, what makes me angry is the 'evangelists' crowd (only a USA'er could ever have invented such a ridiculous church term for a job, btw): apple evangelists, linux evangelists, sony evangelists... and we also have balmer, lol
> 
> BTW: saying MS is expensive is willingly misleading. Nearly nobody needs Ultimate. A Home license UPGRADE costs 90 €. Their mouses and keybaords are also very well made and priced



wealth is relative



Easy Rhino said:


> why in the hell would you build a video player and charge for it when it does the exact same thing as a free one? that is a terrible business move. you shouldnt want to support bad business decisions. WMP is crap anyway. VLC is the best and it is free.



My point exactly, why pay for WMP when you will never use it?


----------



## Frick (Jun 6, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> why in the hell would you build a video player and charge for it when it does the exact same thing as a free one? that is a terrible business move. you shouldnt want to support bad business decisions. WMP is crap anyway. VLC is the best and it is free.



I hate VLC, the interface is retarded. I just use WMP + CCCP. I know you don't need that stuff with VLC but whatevs.


----------



## remixedcat (Jun 6, 2011)

I prefer media jukebox and MPC.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 6, 2011)

as i said earlyier you are debating about something that is little more then windows media centre on crack put on top of the normal win7 GUI, you will be able to switch it off anyway and also have the option not to buy it, bonus     why debate them changeing something they are not changeing 

and as for the developement of stuff I or we dont use and us footing the bill, id rather my OS did something usefull in the world from the off, i remmember well, win 3.1, 95 etc that just sat there capable of typeing and painting and thats it, not good 
plus i cant be assed installin every thing my mum cus m8 and anty might need to use when im fixing their virused up pieces o sheet laptops/pcs, i want most of it to just work.. and so do all LINUx bummers, who rellish all those free instant apps they bang on about, anyway im off t play dirt 3


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 6, 2011)

silkstone said:


> My point exactly, why pay for WMP when you will never use it?



obviously some people do use it and clearly microsoft understands the need to bundle a media player with their operating system. and you aren't really paying for it as it is included in the operating system as value added. microsoft cant just end WMP and let other companies build players that would take away from microsoft. it is a smart business move to bundle them together.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 6, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> obviously some people do use it and clearly microsoft understands the need to bundle a media player with their operating system. and you aren't really paying for it as it is included in the operating system as value added. microsoft cant just end WMP and let other companies build players that would take away from microsoft. it is a smart business move to bundle them together.



I agree, it is a very smart business move, but the fact is it is not just value added, although that's what a lot of people think. You pay for the fluff that you don't use but which others do/are forced to/don't know any better (choose the best option) look at the increase in price of windows over the decade compared with the increase in "features" and tell me there is no correlation.
Again i'm not arguing it's bad business, on the contrary, it's very good business and microsoft are in an unrivaled position to pull this off (unless you count apple who do the same thing)


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 6, 2011)

You can't make a point to Microsoft if you do not have the determination to put up with the inconvenience and lack of entertainment of free(as in free beers and free speech) Windows alternative. You are asking for a bloody revolution to happen while sitting in your chair with a can of mountain dew. That's why I called you a wuss.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 6, 2011)

don't make things personal, mmkay?


----------



## Captain.Abrecan (Jun 6, 2011)

silkstone said:


> continue to force an unsuccessful product onto consumers and force them to pay for it



But you are not forced to use IE or Windows.  Besides that IE is free, as in beer.  If you buy a OEM license of Windows you are already under the bar.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 7, 2011)

silkstone said:


> I agree, it is a very smart business move, but the fact is it is not just value added, although that's what a lot of people think. You pay for the fluff that you don't use but which others do/are forced to/don't know any better (choose the best option) look at the increase in price of windows over the decade compared with the increase in "features" and tell me there is no correlation.
> Again i'm not arguing it's bad business, on the contrary, it's very good business and microsoft are in an unrivaled position to pull this off (unless you count apple who do the same thing)



You are missing the point. It is not "paying for fluff that doesn't get used". The vast majority of all people DO use WMP and IE. That's why it's included. People that use alternatives are a vast minority, and not worth spending money catering to from the perspective of MS. This practice of bundling benefits both the average user, and MS. Win-win. Power users already know how to get around this stuff, and making micro these specialized distros you are referring to would cost them more money, which would be then passed on to all of us.

In other words, leave MS alone. There is nothing wrong with what they do. If you don't like their products, don't buy them. Nobody forces you to.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 7, 2011)

but the vast majority of people do not use IE source source source

Now i know 80% of statistics are made up  but there are still a lot of users who don't use IE and have to pay for it (indirectly) it's development isn't free and the money has to come from somewhere. In my arguments i am also making the assumption that WMP, and other bundled apps are following a similar trend, although may be not to the same extent.

As i see it, microsoft continue to invest more money in developing the integrated applications when less people are using them.

It won't happen over night but i imagine in the future people will demand an slimmed down OS that doesn't contain all the integrated apps and has a price tag to reflect this.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 7, 2011)

silkstone said:


> It won't happen over night but i imagine in the future people will demand an slimmed down OS that doesn't contain all the integrated apps and has a price tag to reflect this.



its called android and ios


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 7, 2011)

I see alot of posts about buisness not going to like this suposed new os. Most buisness I deal with are still using XP. hell General moters still uses win 3.1 on some equipment. and microsoft still suplies these os's to buisness. Big companies like GM, Ford,Dow, buy so manny licenses Microsoft caters to them. they wont be forced to a new os as fast as the average user is.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 7, 2011)

silkstone said:


> but the vast majority of people do not use IE source source source
> 
> Now i know 80% of statistics are made up  but there are still a lot of users who don't use IE and have to pay for it (indirectly) it's development isn't free and the money has to come from somewhere. In my arguments i am also making the assumption that WMP, and other bundled apps are following a similar trend, although may be not to the same extent.
> 
> ...



Usage statistics on a site that average users do not go to are pointless. The other articles show that IE is still the market share leader.

ANd with the rising popularity of other browsers, MS has stepped up their game in their browser to release their best one to date.

Then you are assuming that the money spent on R&D is wasted. So if they didn't give a browser or media player at all, what are they supposed to do? Make more work for the average user to download and install a different one before they can get online or watch videos? That's stupid, almost all other OSes come with a browser and media player out of the box, because that is what the majority wants. Why is it different because MS is doing it?

You fail to realize that if the majority didn't want it, MS would stop doing it, or lose their sales. If it stops being profitable, MS will stop doing it, plain and simple. As it stands, it is still profitable. I fail to see why you want to intervene. The market will take care of itself.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 7, 2011)

apple include itunes, MS include WMP and MCE, every linux variant has something...



every OS has these minimum features. the key is whether or not they allow another product to be installed and become the default.


----------



## silkstone (Jun 7, 2011)

I only picked up this argument due to people calling it socialist when they have no idea what the word actually means. Splitting Microsoft up would actually be the opposite of socialist.

I understand why Microsoft do what the do, should the practice be changed? i don't know, but i do think that a slimmed down version of windows x would benefit many consumers. Will it change in future? probably not due to Microsoft's market position they will lead the industry, more or less, wherever they want it to go.

I am by no means crying out "split Microsoft up" but i do understand the arguments for this idea and do not think it would be the end of the computer industry like some others have posted.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 8, 2011)

silkstone said:


> I only picked up this argument due to people calling it socialist when they have no idea what the word actually means. Splitting Microsoft up would actually be the opposite of socialist.
> 
> I understand why Microsoft do what the do, should the practice be changed? i don't know, but i do think that a slimmed down version of windows x would benefit many consumers. Will it change in future? probably not due to Microsoft's market position they will lead the industry, more or less, wherever they want it to go.
> 
> I am by no means crying out "split Microsoft up" but i do understand the arguments for this idea and *do not think it would be the end of the computer industry like some others have posted.*



I don't think it would either, but I also don't think it would be beneficial.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 13, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I don't think it would either, but I also don't think it would be beneficial.



Thats where your wrong.


things like 


unified driver architecture
actually having real USB  compliant devices
standard posix compliance.

if microsoft was broken up these things could be achieved, just think it would be pretty much possiable for every company to build portable applications if everyone played by a few standards. 

Also it would really screw up the hackers and malware makers. Which is a benefit to us all.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 13, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Thats where your wrong.
> 
> 
> things like
> ...



that makes no sense. you claim that breaking up microsoft will lead to greater homogeny? you have homogeny with microsoft as a single giant corporation right now.


----------



## bostonbuddy (Jun 15, 2011)

an os w/ no common app(web browser media player) is way too much of a niche market to be produced.  How are you going to go to google.com to dl chrome if you don't have a web browser?


----------



## Neuromancer (Jun 15, 2011)

Actually BB, it is closer to what is really going on then everyone might think.  All of these niche stores eating $2-4 dollars here and there.. is killing people. People are not ready for unfiltered  "open source/ unalduterated" information yet

The web is filtered already by US sources BTW... there are tld's that are not DNSable. But they exist. 

It wont be long before we will have a different way of "shopping what internet we surf" all based on cloud computing.


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 15, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> that makes no sense. you claim that breaking up microsoft will lead to greater homogeny? you have homogeny with microsoft as a single giant corporation right now.



Your idioacy is just unreal. 

 I am talking about standard compliance, the stuff underneath of that can be exotic and different but the standards like QT/posix give application developers portable code even with radically different kernel designs and underlying API's. Things like ODF/spreadsheet/email/media these formats are already commonly shared. The only thing keeping windows upfront is arguably base preinstalls and potentially 3d gamming, which would work a shitload better if directx fell of a cliff and was replaced with something with less of a fat ass, though its sort of driving hardware development. This is a rea that could save AMD and Nvidia money. A common shared drive amongst all OS's. 

So yeah the problems we have no are becuase people like you, refuse change and except that a monopoly company is dictating how the market should develope software, had Microsoft not had such good developer tools before everyone else, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation.

  What we have right now is a monoOS enviroment, we can't have that, the worlds getting to big and the vulnerabilitys are starting to stack up.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jun 15, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Your idioacy is just unreal.
> 
> I am talking about standard compliance, the stuff underneath of that can be exotic and different but the standards like QT/posix give application developers portable code even with radically different kernel designs and underlying API's. Things like ODF/spreadsheet/email/media these formats are already commonly shared. The only thing keeping windows upfront is arguably base preinstalls and potentially 3d gamming, which would work a shitload better if directx fell of a cliff and was replaced with something with less of a fat ass, though its sort of driving hardware development. This is a rea that could save AMD and Nvidia money. A common shared drive amongst all OS's.
> 
> ...



uh, i use linux every single day so it's not people "like me." we have OS choice. you can have different varieties of windows, you can use any number of linux flavors/BSD and you can run a mac. the world you want is full of unicorns and glitter. there is standards compliance by groups that comply to the standards other groups create. you see your argument is circular. if you look at the real world you will find that we have the operating systems the market demands and when that demand changes in a way that corporations can make a profit then it will be met. you sound like one of those out of work pundits that needs to spout off a bunch of academic BS that does not apply in the real world.


----------



## bostonbuddy (Jun 15, 2011)

Biggest news about windows 8 imo is its going to be used for the 360.  Phones, pc's, tablets, and consuls all w/ the same os.  Might not be too long before you can use photoshop on your xbox.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 15, 2011)

It appears that developers are starting to revolt over Windows 8 and its use of HTML5/JavaScript over technologies like Silverlight:
Why Microsoft has made developers horrified about coding for Windows 8


----------



## Frick (Jun 15, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It appears that developers are starting to revolt over Windows 8 and its use of HTML5/JavaScript over technologies like Silverlight:
> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...s-8-leaves-microsoft-developers-horrified.ars



It's more like they're revolting over the lack of information. Which is understandable.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 15, 2011)

Frick said:


> It's more like they're revolting over the lack of information. Which is understandable.



Microsoft is trying to pull an Apple but fraked up: tell you something, then ask you to wait till BUILD for more info. lol wut MS?


----------



## Wile E (Jun 17, 2011)

Thatguy said:


> Thats where your wrong.
> 
> 
> things like
> ...


Oh, you mean how all Linux distros have 100% interoperability and compatibility between each other? Oh.... wait a minute.


----------



## VeniceH (Sep 15, 2011)

From the unveiling of Windows 8, Microsoft wants to keep pace with Apple and the iPad. Microsoft, a latecomer to the bash, is apparently prepared to give it a whirl. At the latest Build developer meeting in Anaheim, Calif., Microsoft revealed Windows 8, a drastic change that will bring the ubiquitous platform into the tablet era. 

I read this here: Touchscreen Windows 8 Metro OS will challenge iPad. I’m sure no one will ever miss this.


----------

