Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:19 UTC
Windows Four years ago, July 2007, Microsoft released the first few tidbits of information about Windows 7. Vista had just been shipped, and it wasn't received well - both by critics and the marketplace. During these days, I argued that for Windows 7, Microsoft ought to scrap the Vista userland, and build an entirely new interface and userland on top of Windows NT, while maintaining a 'classic' Windows version on the side for business and other reluctant folk who want to see the 'new' Windows mature a little bit first. While they didn't do this with Windows 7, they are doing exactly this with Windows 8. Ladies and gentlemen, Windows 8 is the first 'cut the legacy'-release we've all been waiting for - and Microsoft couldn't have picked a better time.
Order by: Score:
I don't think so.
by sorpigal on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:34 UTC
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

There's a big difference between changing the default shell and recommended APIs and removing the legacy cruft.

Make no mistake, the "new" so-called legacy free Windows 8 will not break compatibility in any significant way with things that worked in Windows 7 (or Windows 3.1, for that matter). There won't be a big break in the way that Apple likes to do.

Score: 4

v RE: I don't think so.
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:43 UTC in reply to "I don't think so."
RE[2]: I don't think so.
by segedunum on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't think so."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

No he didn't Thom. The problem is that you believe this to be something that it just isn't and to be honest, you come up with this nonsense every single time about new versions of Windows because you buy the soundbites whole. Once upon a time there was an object oriented OS called Cairo or something...........

It's the exact same version of Windows with a new default 'shell' with the real Windows OS still underneath, untouched. That 'shell' they have is just that. It certainly isn't a new operating system or even the beginnings of one and with HTML5 and JavaScript involved it isn't even a new programming platform worthy of desktop development.

Did you think Windows Media Centre was the start of a great new dawn because it ran a new interface on top? I must have missed that article.

It's a hastily retro-fitted mobile interface that Microsoft are running on top because they've realised that they need a separate interface platform that will run and can be programmed on multiple versions of Windows, and crucially, on different platforms. That really is a new thing and why they're doing this. Aside from Microsoft being a marginal player in a market now dominated by iOS and Android where HTML5 seems to be the future and they're having to play catch-up there rather than getting people to use their development platform. Times have certainly changed.

Score: 9

v RE[3]: I don't think so.
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think so."
RE[3]: I don't think so.
by bhtooefr on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 02:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think so."
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Honestly, you know what it reminds me of?

Microsoft Bob, set as the default shell in WIN.INI, on Windows 3.1.

You're isolated in this happy go lucky world, until you start a normal Windows app, and bam, you fall into the Windows environment.

Score: 3

RE[3]: I don't think so.
by flanque on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 08:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think so."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Looks a bit like a mobile OS with a seemless Windows emulator in it.

Score: 2

RE[2]: I don't think so.
by sorpigal on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't think so."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

You really didn't read, did you? You saw the headline, skimmed the teaser, and commented.

No, I disagree with your casual use of loaded terminology.

What you eventually do say in your writeup is that the legacy stuff will be isolated from the rest which will allow things to move forward cleanly and pleasantly. Fair enough (though my deep seated distrust of Microsoft's engineering abilities makes me take a wait and see attitude on that one) but you didn't say that very clearly and not at all until halfway through.

What you chose to do was talk about how Microsoft is going to 'cut the legacy', which is strongly misleading at best. Is there a citation for the "can be removed if necessary" line? I don't find it probable that Microsoft is going to do that any time soon--not until business customers will be okay with it, which means at least 5 and more like 15 years from now.

Can't we talk about reality in a manner that is free from hyperbole and wishful thinking? At least in articles which purport to be news?

Oh, and thanks for modding me down, guys. Way to abuse moderation to suppress differing opinions. What are we supposed to discuss if I can't say "I think this is untrue and the article's author is wrong" in the comments?

Edited 2011-06-02 20:25 UTC

Score: 7

RE[3]: I don't think so.
by MOS6510 on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think so."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I gave you a thumbs up.

But in general people are thumbed down if someone disagrees with the opinion given instead of someone replying to it. I've seen very valid opinions based on hard facts and they are just modded down because they were anti-Google or disagreed with Thom.

Also some very childish and stupid comments are voted up.

Not sure if the voting has any real use. I'd still like to see the negative voted comments. Even just to see what people are replying to.

Score: 1

RE[4]: I don't think so.
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't think so."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Not sure if the voting has any real use. I'd still like to see the negative voted comments. Even just to see what people are replying to.


My account > Preferences > Score threshold ;) .

Score: 1

RE[5]: I don't think so.
by sorpigal on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 12:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I don't think so."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Ah, thanks, I didn't realize you could change this. Was that always there or was it introduced recently?

Now browsing at -20, because all comments are worth something.

Score: 2

RE[4]: I don't think so.
by sorpigal on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't think so."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

in general people are thumbed down if someone disagrees with the opinion given instead of someone replying to it

Which is incorrect behavior and something I have been pushing back against for quite a while on this site, which is the only reason I complained when it happened to me.

Disagreement should be expressed by either replying and disagreeing or giving +1 Insightful or Informative to a reply that already expresses your opinion. That's what discussion forums are for. We can't let reactionary down-modders ruin things for the rest of us.

Score: 2

RE[5]: I don't think so.
by MOS6510 on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I don't think so."
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

You're right.

And I also don't understand why one can choose between a number of reasons to mod someone up/down. I don't see those reasons displayed somewhere when someone had a score of 5.

People who get modded down are done so because people disagree with them, not because they are trolls or post inaccurate stuff. Then again apparently if you post something someone disagrees with you are labeled a troll (if you're lucky).

For example you are not allowed to say anything positive about Apple or be insulted, accused of being brainwashed or just a plain troll. Yet Apple appears in a lot of articles, even if Apple plays no part in the story. One might consider that trolling from the author.

It reminds me of years ago when any criticism of Linux was fought with "But Microsoft/Windows is even worse!". Linux could get away with mass murder if Windows just made one casualty more. And now Google can do anything it wants, because Apple has brainwashed the masses.

But those mods... I'd say get rid of them because the don't have any positive role in the discussions.

Score: 1

RE[6]: I don't think so.
by twitterfire on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I don't think so."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Trolling and voting are the most exciting activities on Osnews now, especially because there aren't too many interesting topics, almost always you see the usual stuff: patents, Apple, Lunix, Windows, VP8 vs H264, fredom of the Internet, rinse and repeat. Or you see a few topics about such obscure subject that you never heard of, even if you are an IT professional.

Trolling was always exciting, but its way moar exciting to troll fanboys and advocates.
And its fun watching fanboys(Apple, Lunix, Windows) and advocates(Lunix, FOSS) fighting between them.

Score: 2

RE[6]: I don't think so.
by sorpigal on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: I don't think so."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

For Apple it depends on the thread/story. In some any positive mention is a down-mod, in others any negative mention is a down-mod.

Score: 2

RE[4]: I don't think so.
by twitterfire on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't think so."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

I've seen very valid opinions based on hard facts and they are just modded down because they were anti-Google or disagreed with Thom.

Also some very childish and stupid comments are voted up.

Not sure if the voting has any real use. I'd still like to see the negative voted comments. Even just to see what people are replying to.


I usually have seen that comments were being voted up when posters disagreed with Thom. Or maybe it's a feature implemented in the site's software?

Although I have lots of comments voted down: Number of Comments: 415 (285 voted up, 26 voted down) , I'm not feeling butthurt because of this.

Comments are a nice way to annoy fanboys - especially Lunix's, Apple's and Google's.

Score: 2

RE: I don't think so.
by mrstep on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:22 UTC in reply to "I don't think so."
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

As soon as they showed Office running in a window there was no question of them being legacy-less. Very funny to get a headline that another Windows Media Center type of shell = no legacy, though to be fair it seems like they're at least going to try to make this shell something developers can easily extend.

Score: 2

RE: I don't think so.
by poundsmack on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:44 UTC in reply to "I don't think so."
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

have you found anything that worked in 3.1 that even works in a 32 bit version of windows 7? 16 bit apps don't work at all on the 64 bit platform (by contrast they work just fine, in most cases, on windows 7 32 bit).

Score: 2

Multiple screens
by Adurbe on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:35 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

I wonder how hardware will follow these new innovations. I work with 2 monitors mainly due to the amount of work I am doing at once (honest!).

A touch interface works fine with a tablet style single monitor but i dont see how it will with 2 or more.

I appreciate that you can still use a mouse and kyb, but its not designed with that in mind so it wont be 'natural' or intuitive.

Score: 2

RE: Multiple screens
by jgagnon on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:58 UTC in reply to "Multiple screens"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

If you could pick a different interface for each monitor... wouldn't that be cool?

Score: 1

RE[2]: Multiple screens
by MysterMask on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Multiple screens"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

cool != usable
(A thing PC nerds always seem to forget when the do 'cool looking stuff' that was never meant to be somehting else than - well - cool looking)

Score: 4

RE[2]: Multiple screens
by Adurbe on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Multiple screens"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

switching interfaces each screen/task :S

I think like many who work on two screens I have an extended desktop split between the two, generally SQL client, email and reference docs on one and browser and other config items on the other. switching interfaces would drive me insane!

Score: 2

Legacy
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:57 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I think that in 2015, we will see an article staring like this:

"Four years ago, June 2011, Microsoft released the first few tidbits of information about Windows 8. Windows 7 had just been shipped, and it was received well - both by critics and the marketplace. During these days, I argued that for Windows 8, Microsoft ought to scrap the Windows 7 userland ..."

I hope that Thom is right this time. MFC needs to die and maybe win32 needs to die, too. They should concentrate on .Net/WPF.

Score: 2

No it's not
by pantheraleo on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:58 UTC
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

Uh, no, this is not what we have all been waiting for. The user interface looks awful for using on a traditional computer. It might be fine on tablets and phones. but for a computer with a mouse and keyboard? Thanks, but no thanks.

Score: 10

RE: No it's not
by mrstep on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:24 UTC in reply to "No it's not"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

The worst of iOS multitasking (Pull an app from where you can't see it? How about at least copy HP on this one?) + Windows legacy APIs + an interface that is absolutely NOT of interest for a desktop... well, it's everything + the kitchen sink again, anyway.

Score: 2

Comment by bolomkxxviii
by bolomkxxviii on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 17:59 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

IF Microsoft can pull off what they are trying to do it could be great. Lets hope this doesn't become another "short horn" where Microsoft promised more than it could deliver.

Score: 3

Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:08 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

I have no intention of buying a tablet, or at least, making one my primary computer. Keyboard and mouse is my preferred method for interacting with a computer. I'd hate to see the classic Windows desktop become a second class citizen, and I'm really not thrilled at all with a touch-driven interface. While it may technically work with a mouse, I'm not thrilled with large click targets separated by a large amount of space to accommodate finger input.

If the classic Windows interface becomes a second-class citizen, I may finally switch away from my beloved Windows full time.

What a shame, too. The changes that came out of MinWin are really, really exciting.

EDIT: I would like to clarify that, by "classic", I mean the Start Menu/Taskbar paradigm, in it's fully-evolved state, in case anybody thought otherwise.

Edited 2011-06-02 18:12 UTC

Score: 2

Can't agree here
by TBPrince on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:10 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm sorry but I cannot agree here.

Supporting 80s-era MS-DOS applications (well, most of them) is what made Windows dominant up until today. It tooks a tremendous effort and engineering skill to do that and that's why other companies and/or organizations didn't even try to emulate that (see Apple or Linux, but not only those).

If you take some time to read a few stories about Windows subsystem to support legacy application you will find lots of highly talented and clever solutions, including Microsoft debugging 3rd-party software, automagically detect running legacy applications and providing that applications a support for "illegal" calls (for ex. arising from undocumented API which have later been deprecated) and literally thousands of other tricks. I think that's something MS engineers should be proud of. And since Windows XP, that didn't even cause system instability.

If people tell me Windows 8 ARM won't support legacy applications, I can agree because it would take a big effort to port that stuff to a different architechture. But if people tell me Windows 8 x86 should drop support for legacy apps... hey.... c'me on ;-)

Score: 4

RE: Can't agree here
by Drumhellar on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:34 UTC in reply to "Can't agree here"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Oracle (via Solaris), IBM, and HP support ancient apps with their OS's.

Even Apple did a reasonable job. Backwards compatibility seems to be the norm. Only Linux completely abandons it.

Score: 1

RE[2]: Can't agree here
by Ford Prefect on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Can't agree here"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

You can run really old Unix applications on a Linux-based OS. Maybe you refer to the driver API. The userland API, including POSIX(!) is backwards-compatible since ages.

Score: 5

RE[3]: Can't agree here
by Drumhellar on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 21:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can't agree here"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

APIs have remained constant, but Linux ABIs have changed. Try downloading an old Linux app, such as Netscape Communicator. It won't run on a modern Linux distribution.

On the other hand, it will run fine on Windows 7 64-bit. Granted, the installer wont' launch (since it's 16-bit, which the 16-bit VM is gone from 64-bit versions of windows), but if you get the files out it'll run fine.

Sun has always guaranteed compatibility with any SunOS app ever written (except those from the dark days of Sun, when they built m68k workstations.

Score: 3

RE[3]: Can't agree here
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can't agree here"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

You can run really old Unix applications on a Linux-based OS. Maybe you refer to the driver API. The userland API, including POSIX(!) is backwards-compatible since ages.


Yeah, so why I can't run Heroes of Might and Magic 3 - Linux edition on latest Ubuntu? You will tell me that devs were proprietary pigs and didn't realease their work on Open Source so the community can patch it with each new Xwindows release, each new kernel release, each new libshitxyz.1.how-cool-is-RMS.1.10015.so? I expect a Lunix program to run on Lunix. It seems I expect too much from Lunix.

Score: 3

RE[4]: Can't agree here
by Darkmage on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 03:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Can't agree here"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

You can't run heroes of might and magic 3 because clearly you don't know what you're doing. You install the old Library versions and use an LD_LIBRARY prefix to run the old games. It works perfectly. Try doing that with old MS-DOS applications that need legacy memory modes or any old game that needs a Voodoo 2 graphics card. Windows just doesn't support that stuff anymore. There are a lot of directx 5-7 games that Windows will not run anymore without driver/library hacks made by end users because they've deprecated large chunks of win32. I've had a lot of games run in wine that windows refuses to run anymore because wine bothered to include both old and new methods of directx.

Score: 1

RE[5]: Can't agree here
by Kroc on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 06:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Can't agree here"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

We have arrived at this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/5/16/

Score: 3

RE[5]: Can't agree here
by WereCatf on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Can't agree here"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You can't run heroes of might and magic 3 because clearly you don't know what you're doing. You install the old Library versions and use an LD_LIBRARY prefix to run the old games.


That's REALLY helpful. I mean, just google around hoping to find a list of all the old library versions you need, then try to either find all those libraries or proceed to download RPM or DEB packages and extract them from those. Then find out how to actually specify where the system should find the libraries and learn rudimentary command line skills along the way, and THEN get to play the game, hoping that PulseAudio doesn't screw over its audio.

Something every novice should obviously know, right?

Both Windows and Linux have real issues with old software, especially games, and Linux ain't any better in that regards.

Try doing that with old MS-DOS applications that need legacy memory modes or any old game that needs a Voodoo 2 graphics card. Windows just doesn't support that stuff anymore.


Well gee, Windows is an OS. MS-DOS is an OS. Windows != DOS. Ie. you're comparing apples and oranges here. Besides, not having a Voodoo 2 isn't a software issue, it's quite clearly HARDWARE.

Score: 4

RE[5]: Can't agree here
by malxau on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Can't agree here"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

You can't run heroes of might and magic 3 because clearly you don't know what you're doing...


That's not really fair.

My experiences with binary compatibility on Linux have been pretty bad.

I remember glibc changing the behavior of the return value of nice() somewhere in 2.2.5-ish timeframe, which broke my build of VMware, and I ran with a hacked up glibc for a while. It took a lot of time analyzing strace output to figure out.

Right now I can't run Netscape 4, because it depends on a version of stdlibc++ that no longer ships with distros, and when I put an old version there, it just AVs on launch. I haven't been able to make much sense of the core dumps.

The best binary compatibility I remember was with Doom 1, which was an a.out binary so used a totally different/isolated set of libs. That meant I could run an entire ancient usermode stack on a modern kernel, and there were no usermode behavior changes to break it.

I've definitely had better compatibility experiences on Windows (and Solaris) where things like Netscape just work.

Score: 4

RE[5]: Can't agree here
by twitterfire on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 13:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Can't agree here"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

You can't run heroes of might and magic 3 because clearly you don't know what you're doing.


Trust me on this one, I clearly know what I'm doing. After all I've use Lunix, quite a few years.

Trying to use old libraries on an Ubuntu 64 bits VM can cause quite some conflicts. And crashes, and a lot of fun. I'm pretty sure I can get it to run if I'm willing to spend hours/days and use unnatural, awkward and ugly hacks. That's not the point.

The point is that one can't run HOMM3 on Linux. Is that simple. Not being able to run software 5-6-7-8 years old is a big FAIL for an Operating System.

Score: 2

RE[4]: Can't agree here
by AmigaRobbo on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 06:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Can't agree here"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

^^ Well in this case it apparently doesn't work because you're not 'Leet' enough, but never mind, M$ still suck!

Score: 2

Why HTML5?
by tessmonsta on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:11 UTC
tessmonsta
Member since:
2009-07-16

Especially after all the work they put into Silverlight, XNA, and .NET? There's little demand (yet) for HTML5 desktop applications, so who are they competing against?

Score: 2

RE: Why HTML5?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:12 UTC in reply to "Why HTML5?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Especially after all the work they put into Silverlight, XNA, and .NET? There's little demand (yet) for HTML5 desktop applications, so who are they competing against?


Don't worry, I'm pretty sure XNA, Silverlight and .NET will be included as well - the details just need to be worked out before they announce that fully.

Score: 1

RE[2]: Why HTML5?
by kristoph on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Why HTML5?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Don't worry, I'm pretty sure XNA, Silverlight and .NET will be included as well - the details just need to be worked out before they announce that fully.


XNA, Silverlight, .NET, and the Win32 API is is all basically 'legacy' stuff and Microsoft will include it all because compatibility is part of their value prop.

]{

Score: 3

RE[3]: Why HTML5?
by segedunum on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why HTML5?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

XNA, Silverlight, .NET, and the Win32 API is is all basically 'legacy' stuff and Microsoft will include it all because compatibility is part of their value prop.

The point here that many aren't getting is that XNA, Silverlight and even .Net (and whatever other alphabet soup they have) is being described as 'legacy' by many because that's the way they're portrayed, and they are certainly not the first things to come out of Microsoft's mouth when they talk about development now.

If you have a classical application in the style of COM or .Net then you're OK because that's where it's going to live. It isn't an application you can put within the new interface. However, if you heavily bought into Silverlight, XNA and .Net in general as the future of programming on Microsoft's mobile platforms.......boy, are you going to be disappointed and out of pocket.

Edited 2011-06-02 19:01 UTC

Score: 2

RE[4]: Why HTML5?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why HTML5?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

However, if you heavily bought into Silverlight, XNA and .Net in general as the future of programming on Microsoft's mobile platforms.......boy, are you going to be disappointed and out of pocket.


What? You do realise all of those are supported on WP7, right? And you do realise they haven't said anything along the lines of "they will not be part of Windows 8", right?

In other words, you know you're talking out of your bum, right?

Score: 0

RE[5]: Why HTML5?
by segedunum on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why HTML5?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

What? You do realise all of those are supported on WP7, right?

What's WP7 got to do with Microsoft's new platform? WP's platform and compatibility, in particular, seems to change with the wind, which is the point being made here. If you're using that as a counter argument it's not a good one.

And you do realise they haven't said anything along the lines of "they will not be part of Windows 8", right?

Developers are not interested in whether they will be a part of Windows 8 or not. You simply don't understand that at all. They are interested in what the primary supported development platform will be, and that has changed God knows how many times on God knows how many versions of Windows and their platforms over the past few years.

That's why there are a lot of people jumping up and down on places like Channel 9. They know what happens when a primary development platform changes and when they are told that what they're using now will still be 'supported'. It means they get left out of the new stuff unless they write new code in something completely different. It's happened with .Net for the past ten years.

In other words, you know you're talking out of your bum, right?

It would help if you knew what you were talking about in all honesty Thom. Coming up with a new technology, telling developers how they can program for it and making sure that their existing code and skills in that code can be reused is a big, big deal for developers. Microsoft used to get that.

In other words, developers don't want to be told to write in HTML and JavaScript for something new when they've spent years developing similar interfaces with WPF, XAML and Silverlight. Mind you, having said that such developers are in a minority so Microsoft will probably get away with it.

Edited 2011-06-02 19:45 UTC

Score: 6

RE[6]: Why HTML5?
by leos on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why HTML5?"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

"And you do realise they haven't said anything along the lines of "they will not be part of Windows 8", right?

Developers are not interested in whether they will be a part of Windows 8 or not. You simply don't understand that at all. They are interested in what the primary supported development platform will be, and that has changed God knows how many times on God knows how many versions of Windows and their platforms over the past few years.
"

Bingo. I'm sure Silverlight will be part of Windows 8. Just like I'm sure you'll still be able to run Win32 apps. That's not the point at all. The point is why come out now saying these full screen apps are HTML5/JS as a big talking point. If Silverlight is a first class citizen then they should say so. Right now it looks like the focus is switching again and developers don't like that (look at the destruction of Nokia for proof).

Edited 2011-06-02 20:01 UTC

Score: 3

RE[6]: Why HTML5?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why HTML5?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What's WP7 got to do with Microsoft's new platform? WP's platform and compatibility, in particular, seems to change with the wind, which is the point being made here. If you're using that as a counter argument it's not a good one.


You said, and I quote, "however, if you heavily bought into Silverlight, XNA and .Net in general as the future of programming on Microsoft's mobile platforms.......boy, are you going to be disappointed and out of pocket."

Emphasis mine.

Developers are not interested in whether they will be a part of Windows 8 or not. You simply don't understand that at all. They are interested in what the primary supported development platform will be, and that has changed God knows how many times on God knows how many versions of Windows and their platforms over the past few years.


Nobody has said anything about what platforms will be 'primarily' supported and which won't. Looking at Windows Phone 7 - you know, Microsoft's latest operating system from which Windows 8 clearly is taking a lot of cues - .NET/XNA/SL are all first-class citizens. Since nothing has really been said about how the development environment will look on Windows 8, it makes sense to look at where it draws from (WP7), and thus conclude that .NET/XNA/SL will be part of it.

Even more so because people like Rafael Rivera and Paul Thurrot - who are a lot more informed about Microsoft;s inner workings than either of us are - have already confirmed that these will be integral part of Windows 8.

http://www.osnews.com/story/24233/Is_Microsoft_Working_Towards_NT_S...

You are assuming that just because Microsoft chose to only mention HTML5/JS yesterday, the entire OS will be focussing primarily on those - in other words, your conclusion is based on absolutely nothing.

Score: 1

RE[7]: Why HTML5?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why HTML5?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You are assuming that just because Microsoft chose to only mention HTML5/JS yesterday, the entire OS will be focussing primarily on those


Well, yes. That is a logical conclusion based on the information given by Microsoft.

- in other words, your conclusion is based on absolutely nothing.


No, its based on the absence of information. You can say a lot by not saying anything. If you ask a small child if they did something wrong, and they don't say anything, kick the dirt and avoid eye contact. They're just avoiding saying something they know people won't like.

I'm willing to bet they want to kick XNA,silverlight,.net to the curb, but will be forced by developer outrage to make them work as well.

Score: 2

RE[6]: Why HTML5?
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 21:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why HTML5?"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


Developers are not interested in whether they will be a part of Windows 8 or not. You simply don't understand that at all. They are interested in what the primary supported development platform will be, and that has changed God knows how many times on God knows how many versions of Windows and their platforms over the past few years.


Those are the things that bothers me mostly. I refuse the HTML5 crap. Maybe I can start learning Logo now, because it will be for sure the development platform of choice in Windows 9?

Score: 2

RE[2]: Why HTML5?
by tessmonsta on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Why HTML5?"
tessmonsta Member since:
2009-07-16

I'm not worried so much as trying to suss out their motivation. If they are serious about their dedication to HTML5 there are some applications that are difficult to impossible to write with the current spec -- some games, desktop sharing, video collaboration... (Kroc would no doubt correct me on this.)

Unless they resort to plugins, in order to write these applications, they would need to extend HTML5 with custom extensions similar to webOS.

Score: 1

RE[3]: Why HTML5?
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why HTML5?"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

If they are serious about their dedication to HTML5 there are some applications that are difficult to impossible to write with the current spec -- some games, desktop sharing, video collaboration... (Kroc would no doubt correct me on this.)


HTML5/JS can be only used for UI part. Unless they come with a powerfull JS compiler, which I doubt. Probably we will still be able to use C++ or C# for programming and we will hire web designers to do the UI part. I respect web designers, but their place is on Web, not on the desktop.

This HTML5 move seems idiotic - at least from a developer point of view.

Hmm, maybe I'll forgive them if they will give me some classes to generate HTML5 UI from within C#.

But if they'll force me to use the bullshit UI on desktop and do my stuff in HTML5/JS I will:

1. buy a Mac even I dislike Apple and Macs
2. start developing for mobile and maybe games, forget desktop and web
3. emigrate in North Coreea
4. start taking crack
5. cut my penis and mail it to Ballmer
3.

Score: 3

Again?
by bert64 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:19 UTC
bert64
Member since:
2007-04-23

I remember how, a few years ago they were offering the new "legacy free" windows nt, alongside the crufty legacy 9x range...

They ended up porting a huge amount of the cruft over to nt... And although the nt design was originally fairly decent, the finished product now has a huge number of serious fundamental security flaws, most of which are inherited from the crufty 9x series.

Score: 2

premature
by kristoph on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:38 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

I am not sure you can say this is the 'first piece of the puzzle' on the road to a new, legacy free, Windows.

In fact, if anything, their adding yet more legacy layers. Microsoft is adding a new UX while maintaining the UX of the previous version.

Just because there is a new direction does not mean that all those old (or for that matter new) technologies that Microsoft has de-empahsized will be abandoned.

We'll see in the ARM version exactly what Microsoft leaves out and I think that will set a tone for the future releases. I would hope that, at a minimum, all that legacy junk becomes an optional install. Just now it seems that won't be the case.

Score: 3

RE: premature
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:55 UTC in reply to "premature"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Please, pretty, pretty, pretty please actually READ the article. Is that really so much to ask?

Your comment takes absolutely NOTHING into account from the article. NOTHING. Very aggravating.

Score: 1

Not too shabby
by ccraig13 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 18:52 UTC
ccraig13
Member since:
2011-05-31

As huge Apple and Linux fan I actually think this is kinda cool. I agree with Thom about OS X needing to kick it up a notch (Does an OS ever reach a point where it doesn't? Well maybe if you consider BeOS ;) ). Microsoft made it too easy for everyone to have better/cooler products maybe this will get them heading in the right direction. Even if it sucks, people will think them colored tiles look purdy and buy it anyway. This will benefit the non-windows user just as much.

Score: 2

Windows 8 Goal??
by lancealot on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:04 UTC
lancealot
Member since:
2007-02-25

I think (hope) the goal of Windows 8 is to bring all the pieces together from the past they have been working on, and make a OS that is good enough to run on multiple devices. They layered everything in Windows 8, so that what will run is only what you use. For example, you install on a tablet, then the tablet based features will be active. If you never run a old program which might require a emulation environment, then no extra resources will be used. Think OS device roles of a sort. Layers will only become active if you use them. If you want programs to work between multiple devices (regardless of CPU) without any re-compile you can use .NET, Silverlight, or HTML5/JavaScript. Thus why they are making a ARM version of Windows 8 to work on tablets and phones.

In the past what Apple and Google have been doing is relating the tablet to the phone. By this I mean using iOS on phone/tablet, and Android on phone/tablet. What I think they are trying to do with Windows 8 is the tablet/desktop bridge. This was unsuccessful in the past because the OS was not built in such a layered way to be able to shed or add layers as needed for the device. On top of that the tablet hardware was not powerful enough. The time might be right to make this happen. Question is if Microsoft can pull this off or not. I could see this being successful if they pull it off.

Imagine having a tablet that runs Windows 8, and when you use as a tablet, tablet features become active, and programs are formatted for the tablet interface. You then go to your desk and put the tablet on a stand and use a wireless keyboard and mouse. The role now goes to a laptop/netbook, where you decide to run some old Windows software which will run the emulation environment which was not running while in tablet mode. Mix into this a future Windows 8 phone (which Windows 7 mobile by the way already uses .NET and Silverlight).

If Microsoft doesn't screw this up, they have the chance to finally be the first to have an OS and desktop environment that runs on multiple devices with software able to run on multiple CPU's using .NET, Silverlight, HTML5/JavaScript mix.

Score: 4

RE: Windows 8 Goal??
by lancealot on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:51 UTC in reply to "Windows 8 Goal??"
lancealot Member since:
2007-02-25

Actually this was a good article outlining what I talked about some and the various approaches:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20068142-248.html?tag=topStories1

I think the direction Windows 8 is going is very good considering the timing is good since the hardware in phones and tablets is getting so powerful. With Intel jumping into the mobile market (I actually think Windows 8 has a big part in this), 2012 is going to be interesting if Microsoft get the job done with Windows 8. I think due to the competition Microsoft has finally got into gear and finally started producing some decent products (Windows 2003 and above, Windows 7, and Windows 7 mobile). This comment coming from a Mac OS X, Windows 7/2003, and Unix/Linux user.

Score: 2

RE: Windows 8 Goal??
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 21:05 UTC in reply to "Windows 8 Goal??"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

I think (hope) the goal of Windows 8 is to bring all the pieces together from the past they have been working on, and make a OS that is good enough to run on multiple devices. They layered everything in Windows 8, so that what will run is only what you use. For example, you install on a tablet, then the tablet based features will be active. If you never run a old program which might require a emulation environment, then no extra resources will be used. Think OS device roles of a sort. Layers will only become active if you use them. If you want programs to work between multiple devices (regardless of CPU) without any re-compile you can use .NET, Silverlight, or HTML5/JavaScript. Thus why they are making a ARM version of Windows 8 to work on tablets and phones.

In the past what Apple and Google have been doing is relating the tablet to the phone. By this I mean using iOS on phone/tablet, and Android on phone/tablet. What I think they are trying to do with Windows 8 is the tablet/desktop bridge. This was unsuccessful in the past because the OS was not built in such a layered way to be able to shed or add layers as needed for the device. On top of that the tablet hardware was not powerful enough. The time might be right to make this happen. Question is if Microsoft can pull this off or not. I could see this being successful if they pull it off.

Imagine having a tablet that runs Windows 8, and when you use as a tablet, tablet features become active, and programs are formatted for the tablet interface. You then go to your desk and put the tablet on a stand and use a wireless keyboard and mouse. The role now goes to a laptop/netbook, where you decide to run some old Windows software which will run the emulation environment which was not running while in tablet mode. Mix into this a future Windows 8 phone (which Windows 7 mobile by the way already uses .NET and Silverlight).

If Microsoft doesn't screw this up, they have the chance to finally be the first to have an OS and desktop environment that runs on multiple devices with software able to run on multiple CPU's using .NET, Silverlight, HTML5/JavaScript mix.


Hmm is that is the case, than is almost perfect. So perfect that in fact sounds SF.

While in theory all is nice, I believe that in practice is hard to accomplish these goals. Apple went the easy and somewhat logical way: Os X on PC and iOS on tablets. Even that Microsoft has 89,403 employees I still find it hard to accomplish the goals you stated. Anyways, I hope I'm wrong and you are right. ;)

Score: 2

*LOL*
by MysterMask on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:10 UTC
MysterMask
Member since:
2005-07-12

So the rumor mill for Win8 has started. Time to get french fries, lean back and watch fanboys in the coming months trying to outpace each other with spectaculare speculations ..

Score: 2

Verenkeitin
Member since:
2007-07-01

What you are forgetting is that every Windows version with major changes has been a disaster.

I'm expecting Windows 8 to be another Vista, except that it will be done faster with more bugs and suck on all platforms.

Score: 0

Here there be unicorns!
by dpJudas on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:17 UTC
dpJudas
Member since:
2009-12-10

Thom, I have a bridge I'd like to sell to you.

First of all I think you're concluding quite a lot from one small tech demonstration of Windows 8. One that I could personally have coded in Windows 7 in about a week if you gave me the graphical design for each of the tablet screens he was sliding between. Basically we are talking about a simple full-screen app with some tiled widgets and some pretty colors and gradients. Note that I'm not saying it wasn't pretty or good or bad but it showed NOTHING about what architecture Windows 8 is based on.

The mythical rewrite that supposedly fixes everything is a very classic junior developer mistake. Since these forums have a lot of new and/or wanna-be programmers its not uncommon to have this point of view voiced here or on the Internet in general. Only a fool would throw away the biggest ecosystem of applications for the desktop just because Thom from Holland read on the internet that .Net is good and all older languages are bad. Only a fool would waste time rewriting perfectly working things when they could spend 1/10 of that time just addressing the real issue: better OS process sandboxing.

But anyhow if you've studied the history of the infamous Vista they indeed did try to pull this insanely stupid stunt of rewriting things in .Net. You know what happened? The OS got delayed by years and eventually they had to restart the entire project (hint: abandon all code and revert back to the Windows 2003 code). Then because of the delays they were forced to release a barely working version of Windows. I bet everyone at Microsoft knew Vista was crap in the RTM version, but sometimes you just have to release to stay in the game.

For all we know this welcome screen could be only for the tablet edition and the desktop Windows 8 will default to the task menu for the 'legacy' desktop that some of us actually like and prefer over tiles that only really work well on a phone or maybe a tablet.

Score: 8

RE: Here there be unicorns!
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 21:36 UTC in reply to "Here there be unicorns!"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Thom, I have a bridge I'd like to sell to you.

First of all I think you're concluding quite a lot from one small tech demonstration of Windows 8. One that I could personally have coded in Windows 7 in about a week if you gave me the graphical design for each of the tablet screens he was sliding between. Basically we are talking about a simple full-screen app with some tiled widgets and some pretty colors and gradients. Note that I'm not saying it wasn't pretty or good or bad but it showed NOTHING about what architecture Windows 8 is based on.

The mythical rewrite that supposedly fixes everything is a very classic junior developer mistake. Since these forums have a lot of new and/or wanna-be programmers its not uncommon to have this point of view voiced here or on the Internet in general. Only a fool would throw away the biggest ecosystem of applications for the desktop just because Thom from Holland read on the internet that .Net is good and all older languages are bad. Only a fool would waste time rewriting perfectly working things when they could spend 1/10 of that time just addressing the real issue: better OS process sandboxing.

But anyhow if you've studied the history of the infamous Vista they indeed did try to pull this insanely stupid stunt of rewriting things in .Net. You know what happened? The OS got delayed by years and eventually they had to restart the entire project (hint: abandon all code and revert back to the Windows 2003 code). Then because of the delays they were forced to release a barely working version of Windows. I bet everyone at Microsoft knew Vista was crap in the RTM version, but sometimes you just have to release to stay in the game.

For all we know this welcome screen could be only for the tablet edition and the desktop Windows 8 will default to the task menu for the 'legacy' desktop that some of us actually like and prefer over tiles that only really work well on a phone or maybe a tablet.


I think you are right when you say we know shit about Windows 8. We cannot draw many conclusions based on that presentation. On thing is for sure, though: the "tile&widget" interface is going to be present in Windows 8. And its UI will be based on HTML. That's what we know. We don't know if they are going to use that on desktops, too. Thom took just some educated guesses.

As for .NET being good just for "Thom from Holland read on the internet that .Net is good", I have to contradict you. .NET is good because it can run on many platforms - phone, tablet, desktop, server, cloud and Web - , it is good because it takes little time to develop on .Net comparing to alternatives, it's good because the code has a high reusability - i can use on Web stuff I written for the desktop and viceversa - it's good because it's architected to be good and, it's good because you can use RAD tools and it's good because it's not the win32/MFC nightmare.

I develop software for 10+ years and I used C++ exclusively. At the beginning of .NET I disliked it as I thought of it of "yet another java" and I thought that "you can't do performance stuff in .NET". After a few years I've learned .NET and I escaped the win32/MFC nightmare. Not only that I am 2x more productive with .NET, but .NET enables me to do both desktop apps and web sites with ease. If it wasn't for the .Net, I would have to use win32/MFC for desktop and ASP or PHP for the web. More complicated and with probably poorer results because its hard to master 2 entire different technologies and programming paradigms. I would have to stick with either desktop programming, either web programming. Now .NET enables me to use one technology on desktop, web, mobile phones, tablets. I can't really ask more from it.

One thing would be nice, though, a native WPF or Winforms implementation so I don't need to use ugly p/invokes when it's time for heavy lifting.

As about "Only a fool would waste time rewriting perfectly working things", I have to remember you of the company from Cupertino?

Score: 3

Really?
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:20 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

"I love how much innovation is going on in the computing space right now - GNOME 3, Unity, KDE4, the iPad, and now Windows 8. The only one seemingly left behind at this point is Mac OS X, which, like iOS compared to Windows Phone 7, will look archaic and quaint alongside all the modern and innovative violence from Windows 8 and the Linux world. Apple will have to really get out of maintenance mode for Mac OS X after Lion."

Really? So just because everyone seems to be making the "new versions" of their desktop environments specifically target tablets and similar devices, Mac OS X will look archaic and quaint?

Developing interfaces for portable touch-screen devices, and trying to somehow make them "scale up" to full-power systems... that seems to be becoming the latest trend along with all this "cloud" garbage. It sounds like a big "f*** you" to traditional desktop machine users and power users.

These limiting interfaces are what we should've had in the days of 640x480 or less, not in the days of 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 (or the 720/1080 crap that seems to have, unfortunately, become the standard). Although I originally had some serious doubts about KDE4, it's turning out that they're the only major desktop environment developers who care about power, features and functionality; while they have a "netbook" interface, they also provide a traditional interface (which has improved vastly since 4.0). Too bad its ridiculous resource use keeps me away from considering it as a serious desktop.

Score: 9

RE: Really?
by Adurbe on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 21:30 UTC in reply to "Really?"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

thats a really good point you make. Why wernt we looking for simple almost palm like interfaces on the desktop before... When small screens really DID impede what you could do

*lovingly remembers the 'good old day'*

Score: 2

RE[2]: Really?
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Really?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

thats a really good point you make. Why wernt we looking for simple almost palm like interfaces on the desktop before... When small screens really DID impede what you could do

*lovingly remembers the 'good old day'*

I have no idea, but IMO it would have made a hell of a lot more sense. Back then, we got power, flexibility and features. Now... with all the screen space we have... we're getting dumbed-down interfaces that just don't suit the desktop, and even worse, are a huge waste of pixels. Luckily, there is still Xfce for a decent lightweight "traditional" alternative, hopefully they don't go off the deep end next.

Score: 2

Refreshing
by mfaudzinr on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 19:49 UTC
mfaudzinr
Member since:
2008-02-13

I do love where Windows 8 is going with the interface. It's simply refreshing. I just wish that the Office team would follow suite and adopting elements from the new UI. At the moment when using regular apps on Windows 8, revealed the regular desktop that we know of and what a world apart it looked against the new UI. Almost dated looking. It is still early yet to see what shall transpire from this, one thing I can say is I find Windows suddenly sexy again if you can believe it, I look forward to the release of Windows 8 with bated breath and gleeful anticipation.

Edited 2011-06-02 20:02 UTC

Score: 2

Windows 8
by Ultimatebadass on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 20:32 UTC
Ultimatebadass
Member since:
2006-01-08

All i keep thinking seeing this new UI is how they just took a huge dump on the power users.

I think there is still a lot to be said as far as standard desktop interfaces go. Hell, even the gnome guys managed to produce something interesting lately (and this is coming from someone who generaly dislikes the linux desktop experience).

This? Will probably be cool to play with for about 5-10 minutes and will make the facebook/twitter crowd happy but it really just transforms what used to be workstation-capable desktop into a oversized tablet.

There will probably be some form of classic desktop there but i'm just sad that it won't see any improvement beyond what's available now.

Score: 5

Uh, Thom? It's stil the same OS.
by IanDumych on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 21:37 UTC
IanDumych
Member since:
2009-02-02

Thom, seriously. Did you even do any research before you wrote this? Here's some screenshots showing the fact that this is still the same old win32.

http://blog.mattatobin.com/2011/04/30/update-windows-classic/

Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Another one who didn't read AT ALL.

It IS the same operating system. It IS Windows. I never claimed ANYTHING ELSE. Point me to where I claim this isn't Windows. Point me to where I say this is a new operating system or a new kernel.

I dare you.

Score: 1

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

I think the point that everyone is taking issue with is that you wrote ...

Windows 8: The Legacy-less Windows We've Been Waiting for


... and its just not the case that Windows 8 is 'legacy-less' by any stretch of the imagination.

Score: 4

Awful, just awful
by codewrangler on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 21:57 UTC
codewrangler
Member since:
2010-01-28

If I was only allowed to make (1) suggestion, it would be, "Hire a Graphic Artist".

What? Did Ballmer do the graphics on that interface with 'Paintbrush'?

Just awful....

Score: 1

IT Needs Compatibility
by benali72 on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 22:25 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

Great article. Part of the key to corporate acceptance of Win 8 will be its backward compatibility to the UI and apps of Win 7 & Vista. Microsoft's track record is not good here.

Here's to hoping they "get it" this time! (And if not, I'm not going to read the ten million hype-job articles that will be forthcoming from the publicity machine on Win 8).

Score: 1

Good article, but...
by scarr on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 22:40 UTC
scarr
Member since:
2010-11-07

Don't celebrate yet. While windows might be getting better, the focus of all these large companies is on that annoying cloud. They love it because of lock in and because of monthly charges to every customer.

A lot, a very lot, of microsoft's effort is going to azure. As a developer, I've definitely felt this shift. All the cool new features are windows azure based... Which means I either develop for that platform, or use the old stuff...

Score: 1

All people care about is the UI
by twitterfire on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 22:47 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

What about kernel, file system, networking and so on? I guess these aren't interesting enough topics.

Score: 4

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

What about kernel, file system, networking and so on? I guess these aren't interesting enough topics.

The UI is the thing which people directly interact with, so it's only logical that they care a lot about it. The fact that lower-level layers have a huge role to play as far as reactivity, reliability, security, power management, etc... are concerned is often forgotten, because it's hard to associate the cause with the consequence there.

Score: 1

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Drivers and most other subsystems is basically what got rewritten with Vista and "perfected" with 7. It is also the main reason that Vista was received so badly and 7 so well: Drivers weren't ready when Vista came out but they were when 7 arrived. 7 (kernel 6.1) is actually Vista (6.0) improved, just like XP (5.1) was 200 (5.0) improved.

Kernel improvement/untangling is the main thing for 8, making it a big candidate to be labelled kernel 7 for me.

(Thom actually worded all of this in the main article quite nicely)

Score: 1

Its the same ole same ole
by viator on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 23:52 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

Watched the demonstration on all things D and as soon as you launch a real app your back in the "classic" windows ui start menu and all. The only major changes i see is with the addition of html5 java script apps. And of course all your old apps wont work on the arm version. So basically they slapped windows phone 7 ui on top of windows 7 built in some arm support and call it windows 8.

Score: 2

No
by computrius on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 00:39 UTC
computrius
Member since:
2006-03-26

No, windows 8 is that dream of a completely fresh version of windows bastardized, thrown into a paper shreader, then glued together into a ball with spit and donkey manure.

Score: 2

Comment by Shane
by Shane on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 01:41 UTC
Shane
Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom, good article. I like what I'm seeing.

The problem I've always had with Microsoft software - and this flows down to third party software on their platforms - is the mindless UI decisions that favoured buttonitis. They made a ribbon interface so that they could fit more buttons onto the screen for pete's sake.

Metro is a breath of fresh air. It couldn't be more different from the old Microsoft UI philosophy. It's minimal, sometimes to extremes. Some buttons don't even look like buttons - they are just text, more like hyperlinks.

As a user, I applaud this move by Microsoft. However, as a developer, I'll wait until we see the API before passing judgement.

Edited 2011-06-03 01:49 UTC

Score: 1

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 02:41 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

It is still in its early development stages but it would be interesting to see how they bring forward all the various components that make up Windows into the new 'Metro' interface. They've shown off some features but what is missing are the bundle applications and system tools for example the control panel - are they going to rewrite it in the new 'metro' way of doing things or do they assume that tablet users will never have to deal with system settings? I also wonder where Office fits into the equation as well given that the current interface is hardly something ready for a touch environment given the small icons etc. that are used.

I'm excited that Microsoft is showing off some cool ideas but at the same time I think they're ignoring the larger picture - how everything actually fits together into a coherent experience for the end user rather than a clusterf--k of legacy and Windows 8 applications. This should have been the time for a genuine departure from the past and pushing 'Windows Classic' into a virtual environment but it appears that once again Microsoft don't have the stomach to take on what I deem as 'necessary' for the advancement forward of Windows.

As a side note, I've recently upgraded my iMac and MacBook Pro to the latest Thunderbolt models - I was hesitant given that I was hoping Windows 8 would really show a major leap forward. Low and behold, when it came to Windows 8 it is just more of the same but with less rough edges - closer working relationship with OEM's, something promised every release, exciting form factors which again is promised every release, a major leap forward in terms of usability but even at Windows 7 there are parts of the operating system still dependent on code form Windows 3.11 (yes, I understand the libraries *THERE* for backwards compatibility but there should be absolutely no reason what so ever for a control panel tool to be making reference to code from 20 years ago). Am I hopeful about Windows 8? sure, but any hope has pretty much been killed once again as the bare minimum is being done by Microsoft (which leaves me to wonder what the hell do the other thousand programmers do as the 12 full time Windows programmers are doing their thing).

Edited 2011-06-03 02:43 UTC

Score: 2

I was waiting for something different.
by vtolkov on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 03:32 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

We have not seen much to love yet. The similar interface was in Media Center and it was also very nice on demo, but useless in practice. The same about HTML integration idea. All attempts of embedding HTML into shell, from infamous Win 95 "Active Desktop" to Apple's Dashboard and Chrome Apps were failed in terms of customer interest. And, I think, we will see the same again.

About Metro primitivism, I gave a try to Win Phone 7, recently Android, and I can say, that iOS is much more comfortable, comparing with everything I've tried. Maybe this is because of beautiful screen, but it is much easier to read, even fonts are better. The same with desktop. OsX has a lot of issues, but its visual theme is excellent. I always use similar in Gnome. And if it will be the last native code platform, I'll stick with it.

Score: 1

Thom ?!?!?!
by kovacm on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 03:32 UTC
kovacm
Member since:
2010-12-16

Thom, did you delete some replays right now ??

I just do REFRESH and suddenly one replay with 8 point score DISAPPEARED completely !!!

plz let me know if you DO delete post that you do not like it ! ;/

Score: 1

RE: Thom ?!?!?!
by MOS6510 on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 10:38 UTC in reply to "Thom ?!?!?!"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It has happened before and people have disappeared, but it's his site so he can do what he wants.

Score: 1

RE[2]: Thom ?!?!?!
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 10:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Thom ?!?!?!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, I am incredibly lenient, and have no problems with sharp discussion and debate (as you can clearly see in this thread alone). However, two comments were deleted in this thread, and in the interest of full disclosure:

- the first contained several instances of "design fags". I will obviously not tolerate such slurs.

- the second one was the bazzilionth personal attack on myself by one particular user, who has been showcasing such behaviour for months now. The bucket was full, so he got banned.

Score: 1

RE[3]: Thom ?!?!?!
by MOS6510 on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 11:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom ?!?!?!"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Design fags? Well, there is the TV show were people (men and women) design clothes and all the guys... ehm... Let's say I see nothing wrong with linking those two words.

Score: 1

RE[3]: Thom ?!?!?!
by twitterfire on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Thom ?!?!?!"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


- the first contained several instances of "design fags".


Which was proudly written by me. ;)

Score: 3

RE: Thom ?!?!?!
by twitterfire on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 13:13 UTC in reply to "Thom ?!?!?!"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Thom, did you delete some replays right now ??

I just do REFRESH and suddenly one replay with 8 point score DISAPPEARED completely !!!

plz let me know if you DO delete post that you do not like it ! ;/


Well, he is jealous his posts aren't hitting such scores.

Score: 2

Sorry Thom about Windows 8
by ecruz on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 06:08 UTC
ecruz
Member since:
2007-06-16

You wishing too much from Microsoft and Ballmer. I am like you, they should cut legacy off, but even with Windows 8, legacy will go back as far as Windows 95.

They just cannot cut that chord. It is the wrong move, again, but Ballmer is too hard headed and not so up to speed as his engineers. Too bad, because overall, Windows 8 looks beautiful. But because all desktop program will run in the tablet version, why should anyone write tablet specifics apps? A waste of a great opportunity for Microsoft.

Score: 1

Windows 8 clean break
by vasper on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 07:42 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

It is refreshing to see Microsoft finally doing it right.

P.S. I liked the reference to Star Trek Enterprise in "It's been a long road getting from there to here"

Score: 2

Windows LTS
by l3v1 on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 09:18 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, since Win7 turned out to be fairly OK from multiple points of view, maybe it would be time for MS to adopt a release model like Ubuntu (I know, I know, bear with me), by making Win7 an LTS release, and Win8 (and later 8.x) running in parallel for a longer time period. This way legacy-needing people would have the possibility to use Win7 for a longer time (during which it would be actively supported and serviced) and have Win8+ so in time (when enough legacy apps get new releases for it) a switch can occur easier, and by that time Win8+ would be able to produce a next LTS Win version, and Win9+ would be the next new line.

Score: 1

RE: Windows LTS
by MOS6510 on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 11:28 UTC in reply to "Windows LTS"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I guess Win XP is the LTS release. It's running longer than a number of Ubuntu LTS releases.

Score: 1

axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

I don't think that the UI elements we see on the Win8 demo are not standard HWNDs.

What Microsoft has done was simply replace the default shell. Other than that, the underlying technology is the same as in all previous versions of windows, improved.

Score: 2

Legacy Free?
by joshv on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 12:38 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

Even WP7 isn't legacy free. It's a Window NT based kernel, and the version of IE that ships with it is at least partially written in C++ and uses portions of the win32 api.

Windows 8 will use even more 'legacy' stuff, including the entire Vista driver model, the display model, and vast portions of the win32 api, even when you are programming in HTML/JS (ugh).

Score: 2

RE: Legacy Free?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 12:58 UTC in reply to "Legacy Free?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Even WP7 isn't legacy free. It's a Window NT based kernel, and the version of IE that ships with it is at least partially written in C++ and uses portions of the win32 api.


Lolwut? WP7 uses a completely re-written Windows CE kernel. The IE in it is indeed suckage comapred to WebKit (but not as bad as those who have never used it seem to think).

Windows 8 will use even more 'legacy' stuff, including the entire Vista driver model, the display model, and vast portions of the win32 api, even when you are programming in HTML/JS (ugh).


We'll see.

Score: 1

Locked.
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 13:17 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Since people seem more interested in discussing their mod scores than the actual topic at hand - locked.

Score: 1