Linked by David Adams on Tue 29th Jun 2010 17:39 UTC, submitted by waid0004
Windows An Italian Windows site called "Windowsette" has published some purported secret Microsoft documents outlining some design and strategy plans for Windows 8. The Microsoft Kitchen blog has provided some analysis of the documents. The documents appear genuine, and there's lots of interesting information there.
Order by: Score:
Monopoly
by vivainio on Tue 29th Jun 2010 18:07 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

Anybody else fine this slide amusing?

http://msftkitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Windows-8-Windows...

Probably an attempt at inside joke...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Monopoly
by Tuishimi on Tue 29th Jun 2010 18:44 UTC in reply to "Monopoly"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

:D Hilarious!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Monopoly - "released under NDA"
by jabbotts on Tue 29th Jun 2010 18:45 UTC in reply to "Monopoly"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'm still giggling about the NDA watermarks. You can bet MS is really pissed at someone unless they are also taking notes from Apple's marketing leak strategy.

Reply Score: 3

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

I'm still giggling about the NDA watermarks. You can bet MS is really pissed at someone unless they are also taking notes from Apple's marketing leak strategy.


Speaking of taking notes from Apple; what I find funny is how Linux has used centralized software distribution for decades and Microsoft didn't care to follow their example. But when Apple comes along with the App Store they suddenly decide it's a good idea. Then again, lots of other companies followed suit. I guess all it took is one successful real-life implementation.

Reply Score: 3

Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

Yeah apt repositories and their ilk aren't quite the same. They don't have ratings or comments, and I imagine it is much harder to get your app into it. Finally, there is no de facto repository - you'd have to get your app in many repositories.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Monopoly - webmin
by jabbotts on Wed 30th Jun 2010 14:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Monopoly - "released under NDA""
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Webmin manages there own repository rather than have it included into Debian's repositories. Other program vendors also provide there own compatible repositories to the point that Google Chrome seems to add it's own automatically and update during th normal aptitude update && aptitude full-upgrade.

It's also a little different with Linux based systems. The number of package formats is not relevant to the software developer normally. It's the distribution maintainer's responsibility to include software into the core repositories and make sure it installs and runs. The original software developer need only provide access to the programs in a way that can be packaged. The ideal is source code but closed binaries are also packaged.

With Microsoft, it'll likely be like Windows drivers though; the software developer is responsible for doing the work and Microsoft responsible only for hosting the package through Windows Update and collecting certification fee. Imagine it though; Firefox and OpenOffice along side IE9 and Office2011 on Windows Update. Half the problem with Windows is that users have to download from any old untrusted server.

Reply Score: 2

aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Sure there are standard ones, though you may want to add others to. But that's mostly for people who do their own work / don't want to contribute to the dist / here-I-could-bash-arch.

Freshmeat & Tucows had the ratings ..

Atleast I think freshmeat did?

Reply Score: 2

Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

I think the decisive factor was payments.

Although there are a lot of decent free (as in beer) programs for windows, this App Store/repo needs big names to play along to be considered a success. Think Adobe, AV vendors, game studios etc. All these would need a payment system to distribute their software through this mechanism

Reply Score: 1

aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

I guess all it took is one successful real-life implementation.
Yeah I like Debian and BSD ports/pkgsrc to!

Reply Score: 3

App Store
by darknexus on Tue 29th Jun 2010 19:20 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I wouldn't mind Windows getting an app store, so long as I can still install whatever I wish to alongside it. A similar idea to the Android market I think would work fine.

Reply Score: 7

RE: App Store
by WorknMan on Tue 29th Jun 2010 19:40 UTC in reply to "App Store"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I wouldn't mind Windows getting an app store, so long as I can still install whatever I wish to alongside it. A similar idea to the Android market I think would work fine.


Yup, that's probably the best way to go about it. By default, the OS only allows installs from the app store, unless you go into options and check allow installing from outside sources. This should prevent 98% of users from hurting themselves, while allowing geeks and power users to install whatever they want.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: App Store
by evert on Tue 29th Jun 2010 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE: App Store"
evert Member since:
2005-07-06

Just voted your comment up because that is what I would like very much: to have some kind of app store of repository for Windows users, and an option to allow 3rd party software installations. Indeed, it would allow power users to have fun, and normal users would be better protected. Maybe even multiple app stores / app sources / repos would be possible, e.g. sourceforge as a repo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: App Store
by FunkyELF on Wed 30th Jun 2010 03:56 UTC in reply to "RE: App Store"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Yup, that's probably the best way to go about it. By default, the OS only allows installs from the app store, unless you go into options and check allow installing from outside sources.


You mean like 99% of the Linux distributions out there?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: App Store
by BluenoseJake on Wed 30th Jun 2010 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: App Store"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

What's your point? We know Linux has repos for software distribution, but really, why pointing it out here is useful, I'll never know.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: App Store
by Clinton on Thu 1st Jul 2010 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: App Store"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Probably since it is yet another "me too" technology from Microsoft.

Companies always come out with "new" technologies, and I personally think it is good to remind people who don't have a firm grasp of the obvious, that there's nothing new here at all.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: App Store
by BluenoseJake on Thu 1st Jul 2010 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: App Store"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Even MS says that they are following Apple here, did you read the article? They aren't claiming it's new, or innovative.

It's still a move forward, if they can get everyone involved. That's the hard part.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: App Store
by Clinton on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 03:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: App Store"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

I wasn't responding to the article, but rather your derision of the parent of this thread for making the comment he did. You didn't like it, and I personally didn't find it out of place, and was therefore offering another opinion.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: App Store
by wirespot on Wed 30th Jun 2010 10:31 UTC in reply to "RE: App Store"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

By default, the OS only allows installs from the app store, unless you go into options and check allow installing from outside sources.


The problem is, I see several challenges here that are huge:

1) App quality control. Part of the appeal of getting apps from a trusted repository (at least on Linux and the App Store) is that you're quite sure anything you install in that manner won't be malware. Linux distros have big distributed teams and the source code at their disposal. Apple has a dedicated team for this. But the Windows app base is one or two orders of magnitude over Linux. Will Microsoft manage to review all that is submitted to the Store?

2) What files are placed where (a major benefit of centralized package management). First, you need a well-thought out file layout (Linux has FHS, Apple has its specific file organization); but traditionally no Windows version has been enforcing this very well. Second, you need to make sure each app observes your file layout. Because if they don't, or you simply run their installer and let them do whatever they want... I don't see much point in the whole thing.

3) Changes to the system. We're talking things like libs, registry modifications, registering for startup etc. It's a can of worms ready to burst. It will need severe policies.

4) Common update mechanism (another major benefit of centralized package management). You want to be able to click a button and have ALL the apps check for updates. Unassisted if needed (at least for security updates). Granted, once issues 1-3 are solved this will be a comparatively minor detail.

5) Migrating existing apps. The App Store and Android started before there were apps for it, their design predates the apps. The Linux repos have access to the source, which helps a lot. But Microsoft will be trying to take this humongous mass of binary apps currently "in the wild" and massage them into a centralized distribution system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: App Store
by WorknMan on Thu 1st Jul 2010 03:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: App Store"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Well, this is assuming that MS isn't going to have OEMs running their own repositories. But if there were only one (as there should be) ...

I doubt that MS will have the time to look over each and every app submitted, but I'm assuming they'd have something set up where anything being uploaded gets auto scanned for viruses/malware, and that users could flag suspect applications. Granted, this is certainly not fool-proof, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

I don't think the way apps are installed would be much different than the way they are now. You just go to the app store, search for an app you're looking for (pretty much the way that the Android/Apple stores work now), and once you find the app you're looking for, you select 'install' and the app runs through its normal setup routine. IMHO, the point of the app store is not so you can install 900 different apps with a single command, but rather to try and keep the worst of the malware out there off of users' machines.

I would imagine there'd be a common set of APIs built into the OS that apps could use to update themselves.

Reply Score: 2

standards but DMR
by mgl.branco on Tue 29th Jun 2010 21:26 UTC
mgl.branco
Member since:
2009-07-22

Interesting enough is this:
"Displaying content using standards (e.g. HTML 5 video) and adopting DRM allows for a wider range of sourcing possibilities"

here http://msftkitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Windows-8-Differe...

Edited 2010-06-29 21:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: standards but DMR
by vivainio on Tue 29th Jun 2010 21:36 UTC in reply to "standards but DMR"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Standards and drm by no mean rule each other out. DRM is basically just a way to encrypt data in a manner where only a predefined program (or set of programs) gets access to them. It doesn't imply you have to use obscure data formats.

And it does improve sourcing options, because now instances that refuse to distribute their data without encryption can play.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: standards but DMR
by lemur2 on Wed 30th Jun 2010 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE: standards but DMR"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Standards and drm by no mean rule each other out. DRM is basically just a way to encrypt data in a manner where only a predefined program (or set of programs) gets access to them. It doesn't imply you have to use obscure data formats. And it does improve sourcing options, because now instances that refuse to distribute their data without encryption can play.


Nitpick: Signing packages (which involves encryption) as an integrity check is part of the way that Linux package managers work. This is not DRM howver, because it is not third-party rights that are managed ... it is just simply an integrity check.

One can't have a repository or package manager (or App store) work properly without integrity checks involving encryption, but only an App Store requires DRM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: standards but DMR
by vivainio on Wed 30th Jun 2010 08:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: standards but DMR"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Nitpick: Signing packages (which involves encryption) as an integrity check is part of the way that Linux package managers work. ...


I don't understand what you are saying here. DRM is not about package managers, it's about what those applications can do after they have been installed.

DRM can work like this:

- Download program Foo
- App manager verifies that it's okay and extracts the package. It stores the checksum of all the files it installs

- When the app is launched, it can access hidden data storage called FooSecrets (with encryption keys/whatever). It's the only application that can access that data storage.
- If you try to replace application Foo with your own application, kernel sees that checksum has changed. The application will run, but it will not allow you to access FooSecrets anymore.

FooSecrets is not accessible in the local file system - rather, it's in a "fritz chip" (trusted platform module). Only a pristine unmodified kernel can see the device, because it's enabled by the bootloader.

Reply Score: 2

v Linux Appstore?
by project_2501 on Tue 29th Jun 2010 22:20 UTC
Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Tue 29th Jun 2010 23:07 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

From what I see it appears that the appstore will be run by the OEM rather than Microsoft; a central repository isn't needed but rather infrastructure in the OS itself which allows one to add repositories so that multiple ones can exist - when you install Flash that you not only get it installed but the Adobe repository is added to the Windows update control panel.

As for Windows 8 it appears that Microsoft is trying to walk a very fine line between a consistent experience and giving the tools for OEM to customise and provide a unique experience for customers. On one hand you want to ensure that you don't have this massive difference in quality of computers loaded with Windows but at the same time you don't want there to be no difference that differentiation is down to price which squeezes profits for Microsoft and OEM's.

There is also an interesting move that the more Microsoft is componentising Windows under the winmin project. It will be interesting to see in the future as the cost of Windows can be reduced to only the components the OEM's want - that we'll see storage devices and so on using Windows at its core.

I think the interesting slides are those regarding power management because right now Windows as so far as battery life is far behind Mac OS X. Hopefully by the time Windows 8 is released that Microsoft has done something about the power management so that Windows is more on par with Mac OS X.

For those thinking that the satisfaction of Mac OS X has to do with legions of brain dead users, I suggest you look at this slide:

http://msftkitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/All-Eyes-on-Apple...

It clearly lays out exactly what Apple has going for it and why Apple commands brand loyalty that Microsoft could only ever dream of. If Microsoft can recognise the 'vicious cycle' - so can you.

Edited 2010-06-29 23:13 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Slambert666 on Wed 30th Jun 2010 04:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

For those thinking that the satisfaction of Mac OS X has to do with legions of brain dead users, I suggest you look at this slide:

http://msftkitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/All-Eyes-on-Apple...



Exactly why this is a fake. Only an Apple fanboy (or marketing agent) would make a slide like that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by akavel on Wed 30th Jun 2010 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
akavel Member since:
2009-10-27

Ah, so I'm not the only one highly suspicious that this can be a smart marketing action by Apple...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by WorknMan on Wed 30th Jun 2010 07:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

From what I see it appears that the appstore will be run by the OEM rather than Microsoft; a central repository isn't needed but rather infrastructure in the OS itself which allows one to add repositories so that multiple ones can exist


So I guess it will be in fact like Linux. Bummer, I was hoping for only one repository, instead of 9,000 ;) Really, they should be DISCOURAGING OEMs from dicking with the default setup instead of encouraging it. These OEMs are shipping out PCs loaded down with craplets and other undesirables, and then end users end up blaming Microsoft/Windows for the negative consequences. "Oh gee, my computer is running really slow. Surely it's not because of the 30 trial applications the vendor installed that's running at startup. It must be Microsoft's fault ...'

Edited 2010-06-30 07:14 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Wed 30th Jun 2010 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

So I guess it will be in fact like Linux. Bummer, I was hoping for only one repository, instead of 9,000 ;) Really, they should be DISCOURAGING OEMs from dicking with the default setup instead of encouraging it. These OEMs are shipping out PCs loaded down with craplets and other undesirables, and then end users end up blaming Microsoft/Windows for the negative consequences. "Oh gee, my computer is running really slow. Surely it's not because of the 30 trial applications the vendor installed that's running at startup. It must be Microsoft's fault ...'


If there was one repository then someone will have to manage it and if someone manages it then you're going to have issues arise where updates aren't accepted and propagated in a timely manner. I'd sooner Adobe run their own repository, Microsoft have their own, Apple and so on have their own repositories. They all take care of their own and all the responsibility is on the individual companies involved rather than pushing it off onto a third party whom they cam blame when things go wrong.

The crapware you see is the result of the race to the bottom - OEM's are forced to find new forms of revenue simply to get their margins semi-respectable. If you sold a computer with no crapware tomorrow you'd have idiots jumping onto this very forum whining that the computer is more expensive and how one could easily uninstall all the crapware if one wanted. There is a reason why on average a MacBook costs around $150 more than a comparable laptop being sold in Dick Smiths, because it doesn't have $100 worth of crapware subsidies keeping the price low.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by WorknMan on Thu 1st Jul 2010 04:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If there was one repository then someone will have to manage it and if someone manages it then you're going to have issues arise where updates aren't accepted and propagated in a timely manner. I'd sooner Adobe run their own repository, Microsoft have their own, Apple and so on have their own repositories. They all take care of their own and all the responsibility is on the individual companies involved rather than pushing it off onto a third party whom they cam blame when things go wrong.


The problem with this scenario is that only the 'big boys' would be able to run their own repository. Otherwise, if you've got every Tom, Dick, and Harry running their own, what's to stop them from putting malware in their repository, if they're the ones managing it?

If you sold a computer with no crapware tomorrow you'd have idiots jumping onto this very forum whining that the computer is more expensive and how one could easily uninstall all the crapware if one wanted.


Eh, I don't personally know any tech savvy people who would complain about having to pay a little more for a machine without crapware. But even if people did, the average consumer is never going to know the difference. And for them, whether they realize it or not, the slightly higher cost of the machine will be well worth not having the crapware in the first place (and the headaches that result from it).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by darknexus on Wed 30th Jun 2010 09:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

From what I see it appears that the appstore will be run by the OEM rather than Microsoft; a central repository isn't needed but rather infrastructure in the OS itself which allows one to add repositories so that multiple ones can exist - when you install Flash that you not only get it installed but the Adobe repository is added to the Windows update control panel.


Noooooo! Please! OEMs already fcuk up our systems enough in Windows land, now companies like Adobe are going to be allowed to do it too? OEM repositories? Adobe/insert-company-x-here repositories, shoving unwanted software in my face every time I just want to update? Really, hasn't Microsoft learned their lesson with regards to OEMs? They can't be trusted to make a good experience! They fill their machines to the brim with crapware, the customer gets ticked, and Windows (not the OEM) gets blamed. If anything, control of such things should *never* be put into the hands of OEMs. The no crapware policy is definitely one thing Apple does right.

As for Windows 8 it appears that Microsoft is trying to walk a very fine line between a consistent experience and giving the tools for OEM to customise and provide a unique experience for customers. On one hand you want to ensure that you don't have this massive difference in quality of computers loaded with Windows but at the same time you don't want there to be no difference that differentiation is down to price which squeezes profits for Microsoft and OEM's.


Let's hope they don't end up giving too much control to the OEMs then, because if they do we're looking at massive UI incompatibilities and fragmented experience the likes of which are the stuff of nightmares.

I think the interesting slides are those regarding power management because right now Windows as so far as battery life is far behind Mac OS X.


That's very hardware dependent, as is the claim that OS X gets better battery life than Windows. On one hand I have a netbook, running Windows 7, that easily gets over 12 hours of battery life. I also have an older Macbook that gets maybe 5 hours on a good day running Snow Leopard. Now, this overlooks the hardware and battery capacity differences, but by this pure generalization I could make the opposite claim as you do. Such things can only be compared on an exactly equal playing field (equal hardware, equal performance and battery tests). Even under these equal conditions, driver differences can come into play and skew the results one way or another, so these types of things are often hard to measure accurately. Personally, I've always found Linux to get the absolute best battery life of the three major oses, but as with anything Linux, that assumes you or the OEM have configured the powersave options properly (not the easiest thing to do depending on the drivers your Linux install uses). In any case, battery life is too fiddly to make any pronouncement that one os does better than another.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by aliquis on Wed 30th Jun 2010 15:18 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

legions of brain dead users
But making things "just work" and everyone able to "realize their ideas" _IS_ what caters the brain dead users.

Reply Score: 2

v Once again....
by ballmerlikesgoogle on Wed 30th Jun 2010 02:02 UTC
Big Surprise?
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 30th Jun 2010 03:53 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

"In a big surprise, Microsoft is looking to Apple for inspiration, and these documents contain high praise for Apple's "virtuous cycle" of UI quality and user productivity."

I find it hard to see Microsoft's copying of Apple as a "big surprise," especially considering they've they've been doing it non-stop starting with Vista...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Big Surprise?
by ebasconp on Wed 30th Jun 2010 15:27 UTC in reply to "Big Surprise?"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

"In a big surprise, Microsoft is looking to Apple for inspiration, and these documents contain high praise for Apple's "virtuous cycle" of UI quality and user productivity."


Actually the author forgot the <Sarcasm> and </Sarcasm> tags containing such text ;)

Reply Score: 2

Facial Recognition Login?
by ironix on Wed 30th Jun 2010 07:40 UTC
ironix
Member since:
2009-02-26

I was thinking about that facial recognition login...

What's to stop someone from simply holding up a picture of the account holder to the camera?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Facial Recognition Login?
by Coxy on Wed 30th Jun 2010 07:44 UTC in reply to "Facial Recognition Login?"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

I think even MS would have
considered this

Reply Score: 2

RE: Facial Recognition Login?
by abdavidson on Wed 30th Jun 2010 08:17 UTC in reply to "Facial Recognition Login?"
abdavidson Member since:
2005-07-06

The technology is (somehow) more sophisticated than that.

Using my Dell laptop with facial recognition/authentication software built in, we tried using printed pictures and iPhone screen taken pictures to login and in neither case were the images even *recognised* as a *face*, let alone mine.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Facial Recognition Login?
by vodoomoth on Wed 30th Jun 2010 11:28 UTC in reply to "Facial Recognition Login?"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

I'm not even thinking about identity theft or security issues. What about availability? What if the webcam is out of service? Or the driver fails because of an updated driver or because of conflict with another driver or system component?

It'll be fine with me if facial recognition is not the only way of logging into my account.

I don't why but I would prefer eye recognition than facial recog.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Facial Recognition Login?
by aliquis on Wed 30th Jun 2010 15:21 UTC in reply to "Facial Recognition Login?"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Nothing, but it doesn't have to be ultra-secure as long as you can turn it off.

If it's a family computer, you trust your family and everyone just want to have their own desktop, documents, photos and bookmarks , then it's enough, simply to use and work.

If it's in a corporate environment then just turn it of and use something safer.

Windows and OS X let the system boot into a user in the first place to without logging in, same thing, you don't HAVE to.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Facial Recognition Login?
by haakin on Wed 30th Jun 2010 16:21 UTC in reply to "Facial Recognition Login?"
haakin Member since:
2008-12-18

I was thinking about that facial recognition login...

What's to stop someone from simply holding up a picture of the account holder to the camera?


"Face Recognising Vending Machines Fooled By Photos In Japan"
http://www.homotron.net/2008/06/face_recognizing_vending_machi.html

Reply Score: 1

Yeah...
by Neolander on Wed 30th Jun 2010 08:30 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

After Apple reaching competition level in smartphone hardware with iPhone 4, here's Microsoft reaching competition level in operating systems with Windows 8.

When does the real innovation begin ?

Reply Score: 2

Authentication via webcam
by frood on Wed 30th Jun 2010 10:33 UTC
frood
Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess I'm going to have to start shaving regularly just so I can log into my PC

Reply Score: 4

:(
by tjsooley on Wed 30th Jun 2010 11:50 UTC
tjsooley
Member since:
2010-06-30

If this is true (Which is a big if) Microsoft has just picket up there coffin

Reply Score: 1

Comment by defdog99
by defdog99 on Wed 30th Jun 2010 14:20 UTC
defdog99
Member since:
2006-09-06

Windows ME 2011

Reply Score: 0

Apple setting the OS bar too low!
by ebasconp on Wed 30th Jun 2010 15:09 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

After all the "wonderful things" Apple implemented in its iPhone, iPad and family: FaceTime, the multitouch interface, "multitasking", its AppStore and so on.... I wonder what is now called "Operating System"?

I used to know that OS is the thing that makes the computer work: handles memory, processes, threads, IPC, hardware and so on... Is all that stuff history and now the innovations on OSes will be like: "Windows now can upload your photos to Facebook and send messages to your Twitter account"? or "You can move your photos with your fingers in your desktop"? Sad, very sad.

Edited 2010-06-30 15:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

still far fetched
by dvhh on Wed 30th Jun 2010 21:23 UTC
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

regading the app store, microsoft would be in very *very* hot water being the gatekeeper of such system, so not a chance. might be implemented as an extra layer over the install process.

the log off boot is a nice idea that I think every body was thinking about, so if no patent is in the way , well go for it (might still need long reboot cycle for driver install upgrade, OS patches, but would reduce frustration on the long run).

brand loyalty, well microsoft is already fucked up on this one, count in some apple ads plus a little bit of windows Me and add the vista capable sticker fiasco, and well you've go an image hurt forever (and don't forget their suicidal xboxes problem ).
Apple wins there because :
- their market is still tight
- they are control freaks that doesn't give easy way to customize their platforms.
- got a base that is loyal enough to forgive about their problem.
- and control the begin and the end of their products distribution.

Reply Score: 2

Alleister
Member since:
2006-05-29

Seriously!

Reply Score: 2