Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 10th Nov 2012 01:41 UTC
Windows "Despite the fact that I've been using Windows 8 for the past three weeks, I somehow managed to overlook a rather stark feature in the OS: ads. No, we're not talking about ads cluttering up the desktop or login screen (thankfully), but rather ads that can be found inside of some Modern UI apps that Windows ships with. That includes Finance, Weather, Travel, News and so forth. Is it a problem? Let's tackle this from a couple of different angles." Hadn't seen them either - I don't use those applications - but this is pretty despicable.
Order by: Score:
Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Sat 10th Nov 2012 02:11 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

Well, the ads are unobtrusive, and the apps they show up in are apps that have new content updated throughout the day, it doesn't bother me at all.

Also, the link needs fixing. Its html is borken.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by WereCatf on Sat 10th Nov 2012 03:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Well, the ads are unobtrusive, and the apps they show up in are apps that have new content updated throughout the day, it doesn't bother me at all.


Personally I dislike the idea that you pay for a product and you STILL end up with ads. It would be a different setting if you didn't pay for it, but alas, that is definitely not the case here.

That said I don't have Windows 8 and I wouldn't use those apps anyways, so take my opinion with that in mind.

Reply Score: 19

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Lazarus on Sat 10th Nov 2012 03:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

Personally I dislike the idea that you pay for a product and you STILL end up with ads. It would be a different setting if you didn't pay for it, but alas, that is definitely not the case here.


I always used to think the same thing about TV service. Then came the Internet... ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by tanzam75 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 03:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

Personally I dislike the idea that you pay for a product and you STILL end up with ads. It would be a different setting if you didn't pay for it, but alas, that is definitely not the case here.


There are ads on pay-television.

There are ads inside mass-transit buses, even though they charge fares.

There are ads on my Kindle, even though I paid for it.

There are ads at the back of trade paperbacks, for other books from the same publisher.

There are ads in print newspapers, even after you've paid to subscribe to them.

Thus, Windows 8 is very much in line with other hybrid models, in which the user pays something, and the advertiser pays something.

It is also done in a relatively reasonable manner. The ads appear only in those built-in apps that rely on ongoing refreshed content -- i.e., apps that have ongoing licensing costs. If you don't use those apps, then you don't see any ads.

If there were ads in Mail, or Explorer, or the desktop wallpaper -- then that would of course be a different matter!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by some1 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

It is also done in a relatively reasonable manner. The ads appear only in those built-in apps that rely on ongoing refreshed content -- i.e., apps that have ongoing licensing costs.

You'd think that of all companies Microsoft can secure itself a very good deal on standard content like news and weather. It seems more plausible that they're just showing off in-app ads to other developers.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by ze_jerkface on Sat 10th Nov 2012 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Ads are everywhere so we should get used to them in more places.

FINALLY someone has stuck up for corporate advertising departments.

THE WORLD IS IN YOUR DEBT SIR.

Reply Score: 16

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by JAlexoid on Tue 13th Nov 2012 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

However, there goes Microsoft's major argument against Google. Microsoft is also serving you ads.(This time it's not the OEM, it's Microsoft itself)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 10th Nov 2012 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

you have to scroll all the way to the right to even see the ad.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by WorknMan on Sat 10th Nov 2012 03:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Well, the ads are unobtrusive, and the apps they show up in are apps that have new content updated throughout the day, it doesn't bother me at all.


Yeah, same here, since I don't use the apps either. In fact, I didn't even know they were there until I saw this article. And trust me, I am someone who hates ads more than just about anybody, and avoided buying a Roku for that same reason (since Roku puts a big-ass ad right on the home screen). If they start putting them on the Start screen, I will be the first one to start bitching.

BTW: A few of my buddies on Google+ were yelling about this and urging everyone to boycott Windows 8, but they all have Xbox 360's with Gold memberships, where not only are the ads right in your face and unavoidable, but you also get charged a monthly subscription fee for the privilege of viewing them. Needless to say, the irony was not lost on me ;)

Anyway, if it bothers you that much, uninstalling those apps is just one right click away. It's too bad you can't also uninstall Metro, but I digress ;)

Edited 2012-11-10 03:07 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 04:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Well, the ads are unobtrusive, and the apps they show up in are apps that have new content updated throughout the day, it doesn't bother me at all.

No ads are "unobtrusive" when you don't want to be force-fed these companies' shit, especially after you've paid a ridiculous amount of money for a piece of software.

Windows, that you have to pay hundreds for at retail, is adware. Who would've guessed? I think Lavasoft needs to push out a new version if they're still around that offers to wipe the disk clean if Windows 8 is installed because, after all, it's just a big, glorified, expensive example of what it's fighting.

Literally--for anything good that ever comes to Windows, there are dozens of major, major regressions. Commercial adware... gotta love it.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by WorknMan on Sat 10th Nov 2012 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Windows, that you have to pay hundreds for at retail, is adware.


Hundreds? Nice troll ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 06:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Last I checked, the full retail copy of Windows didn't cost in the tens of dollars. Some low-end upgrades might be $99.99999, but they're still basically a hundred. You're probably alluding to the to $40 special upgrade promotion for Windows 8. If so, you'd better run out and get a copy while the special pricing lasts, because it won't stay there for long. Additionally, you'd better have a copy of Windows already--because the promotion is only for the upgrade copies.

I'm pretty damn sure I had to pay $200 for Windows XP Professional years ago just to get away from the trainwreck that was Windows ME, and if it was the "full" version it would have been a whopping $300. Vista and 7 came with prices of up to $400 if I remember right (one of the many reasons I ditched the OS starting with that release; SKU nightmares and increasingly ridiculous pricing schemes being only two big ones).

And while I don't care too much about Windows 8's pricing myself (Windows 8 is Windows, Windows was always expensive, it's 2012 and that's obvious by now, nothing new...), a quick glance on Amazon shows that Windows 8 Pro will jump right up to $200 soon enough. And yes... again... that's just the upgrade, once again.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Sat 10th Nov 2012 06:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Or, get an OEM copy of Windows 8 Pro for $129.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Or, get an OEM copy of Windows 8 Pro for $129.

Yeah... and be stuck running it on that, and only that, computer. Great idea.

No, thanks. I value my freedom as the owner of my computer and a license of a piece of software that I paid good money for to be able to freely and without restrictions upgrade my machine as I desire, or even move the operating system to a completely new, more powerful computer in the future without special technical restrictions being put in place in the software to prevent me from doing so.

But if you want that bullshit, then have at it. Windows OEM versions may be just for you.

Edited 2012-11-10 07:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 10th Nov 2012 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I've used OEM licenses and swapped out the Motherboard, hard drives, memory, etc and not had a problem.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar
by lucas_maximus on Sat 10th Nov 2012 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

As others have said, you it is trivial to move the OEM license.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Drumhellar
by JAlexoid on Tue 13th Nov 2012 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Also - illegal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar
by WorknMan on Sat 10th Nov 2012 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

a quick glance on Amazon shows that Windows 8 Pro will jump right up to $200 soon enough. And yes... again... that's just the upgrade, once again.


Where the hell do you get that info? The Pro 'System Builder' (which is basically the OEM version of old) is $125. AFAIK, they don't even sell retail/boxed copies anymore. Why? Cuz nobody was buying them. You either get Windows as an upgrade, or with a new machine.

The regular build (which is what most people end up getting) is $85 on Amazon. A far cry from the 'hundreds' I keep hearing about.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by jnemesh on Mon 12th Nov 2012 21:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
jnemesh Member since:
2008-04-08

I am seeing $199 or so for a FULL RETAIL copy of Windows 8. Yeah, you can get an upgrade for $40, but how much is the copy of Windows 7 to go with it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by gumoz on Mon 12th Nov 2012 22:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
gumoz Member since:
2008-05-15

"Windows, that you have to pay hundreds for at retail, is adware.


Hundreds? Nice troll ;)
"
In Mexico you pay more than $200 USD for it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Sat 10th Nov 2012 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Well, considering most of the ads aren't even visible unless you scroll past ALL the content.

And, again, they only show up in the apps that have new content updated throughout the day.

The sports app is a good example. You launch it, it's a (nearly) full screen photo from a recent game that links to an article by (the one that popped up this time is from AP). On the right edge hints at more content.

Scroll over, there are 7 headlines, two with a photo, all captioned, and each from different news sources. Farther to the right you see the edge of a scroll box with 15 headlines.

Scroll the screen more are links to videos (6 are presented), plus links to slideshows (6 presented), plus the schedule for whichever sport, followed by a list of your favorite teams, and finally, an advertisement. There is no content beyond the ad. The "Today in Sports" section gives you 4 screens full without an ad, the Hockey section gives 6+.

Follow a link, you get page after page of stories, with a small add every 5 pages or so.

This is far less advertising than, say, when you spend $6 on a magazine.

It is also only these apps that are being constantly updated with new, licensed and copyrighted content that have these ads. The messaging app, mail, people, maps, camera, photo, or RDP apps have no ads.

You're hardly having these ads forced upon you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 06:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Well, considering most of the ads aren't even visible unless you scroll past ALL the content.

Problem is, I already checked like a week ago in my test install of the RTM evaluation (I'm actually surprised it took so long to hit Slashdot and OSNews...), and it seems that the ad loads whether you scroll all the way over to the end or not. So no matter what you're adding to the ad views (and using your own bandwidth to do it) whether you actually read all the way to the end or not.

You're hardly having these ads forced upon you.

They certainly are forced upon your bandwidth, it seems. Anyway, the ability is now there. Now it'll just spiral until it gets worse and worse, and then it will get out of control. Like... gasp... subscription television services. I don't even remember what the of the ads that I saw were exactly (even if I did, I'd rather not say because it would only benefit these companies), but they were laughably obnoxious. I mean... come on... they're advertising a fucking laundry detergent, of all things, in a news applica..., er, I mean, app? Seriously? WTF?!?

Reply Score: 6

v RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Sat 10th Nov 2012 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar"
RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 07:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Really? The bandwidth of a smallish image is your big concern? I mean, all the content that is dynamically loaded as you use the app, constantly updated, and you're worried about, at most, 100KB?

You're grasping for straws.

Look, the simple fact is that I am completely and utterly against advertising running directly on my computer. I own the machine, and I own the operating system (or a license to it) to be able to run my computer. It is my machine--my property--and I want to run it as I see fit. I am completely against giving free money to companies in the form of automatically-downloaded advertisements directly in the software of my machine, whether it heavily affects me or not.

It's MY computer, thank you very much--I don't need any tips on what shampoo to buy next week (actually, some shampoo was the other ad I remember IIRC--how unfitting and ironic). And I do not want indirectly help to rake in money to some third-party cosmetics and beauty company that I don't give a damn about just for the privilege of using my computer. The simple fact is, if you keep scrolling to the end of, for example, the weather "app," you'll see the ad.

The good thing is, they are avoidable--just avoid the Metro interface and its craptastic "apps" completely. But the fact is, in my testing, I found myself repeatedly being subjected to these ads, far more times than I would like. I have, as usual, made it a point to mentally "block" the ads, so I purposely forgot the exact products; yes, I hate advertising that much. I quickly abandoned further playing around inside Metro after seeing the ads, and went straight for the desktop.

Edited 2012-11-10 07:39 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 10th Nov 2012 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Why are you not complaining about that cable subscription that you pay hundreds a year for and are inundated with ads on YOUR tv?

Why not complain about that movie you saw where you paid 30-40 dollars in ticket and concessions and are seeing ads in the pre-roll?

Ads are everywhere....you don't want Ads? If it is sooooo onerous for you to have to pay with your impressions for data services you are using, go to Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Drumhellar
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Why are you not complaining about that cable subscription that you pay hundreds a year for and are inundated with ads on YOUR tv?

Because I do not have any cable or other subscription TV service, nor have I ever had any such service in my name, and I never will. I refuse to pay a penny for that garbage, and I don't miss it. Those companies largely form the definition of screwing their customers, the way I see it... and the ads just add something negative to an already bad service.

Does that answer your question? ;)

Why not complain about that movie you saw where you paid 30-40 dollars in ticket and concessions and are seeing ads in the pre-roll?

Because like TV service and what's typically broadcast on it, movies typically suck, and I never go to any theaters. I just have no real interest in them. If there is a movie I want to watch, I'll rent or buy it on DVD. And if that DVD contains unskippable ads... then I'll be complaining. Especially if I bought it.

Ads are everywhere....you don't want Ads? If it is sooooo onerous for you to have to pay with your impressions for data services you are using, go to Linux.

Too late. Been there happily and exclusively since 2006.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Lorin on Sat 10th Nov 2012 22:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

For one thing I don't pay for cable or satellite bandwidth no matter how much I watch it, the cost is the same. Microsoft is costing me bandwidth which I do have to pay for especially on an LTE system.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Lorin on Sat 10th Nov 2012 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

100 kb times the thousands of potential pictures

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

100 kb times the thousands of potential pictures

Yep, exactly. That, plus the $$$ that goes directly to the company whose product is being advertised, from the countless hundreds of megabytes (or even gigabytes) that are sent out in the form of millions of individual 100KB streams of data.

And then what do the companies do after they've suckered their audience into buying their products? Well, they pocket the change and raise the prices of their products, of course! You know, pass that extra wasted money they blew on advertising their products right back onto their customers to make us pay for their brainwashing of the masses.

I really hope no one thinks that advertising is free and that the sale surges that it causes will actually lower the price of a company's products... after all, the products by the name-brand mega corporations with mega marketing budgets tend to sell their prices at much higher prices than the rest of their competition. It's plain as day, right now, at any supermarket you walk into.

Edited 2012-11-10 08:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Lorin on Sat 10th Nov 2012 08:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

According to the lawyer I just asked about this, I would be entitled to a portion of the revenue Microsoft gets from this since my machine, which is my own private property is being used by Microsoft to generate profit I never see.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar
by lucas_maximus on Sat 10th Nov 2012 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Dude do you browser the web with lynx or something?

Because most websites have at least 20-30 background images.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Lynx? No. elinks? Sometimes. This post is from elinks, just to see how funcitonal osnews is these days from a text based browser. Its about as useful as viewing it from android.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Drumhellar
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Nah. But I would honestly prefer to use Lynx in short bursts over any typical web browser's default configuration with no extensions (I prefer Links, though...). The first ad usually sets me off, but to add insult to injury I usually see more than one on a web page at a given time; it irritates me like the old days of using Windows where sending a file to the recycle bin would ask for confirmation.

Just like changing that recycle bin setting first thing after a clean Windows install, adding my typical extensions and tweaking other privacy settings must be done before I will visit a second web site. For that reason, my browser choice is in fact limited by the ability to block advertising, tracking, scripting, third-party cookies, and all that stuff... but I don't necessarily need Lynx to do that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by lucas_maximus on Sat 10th Nov 2012 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well, the ads are unobtrusive, and the apps they show up in are apps that have new content updated throughout the day, it doesn't bother me at all.

No ads are "unobtrusive" when you don't want to be force-fed these companies' shit, especially after you've paid a ridiculous amount of money for a piece of software. [/q]

You are aware there were adverts in ancient egypt.

Windows, that you have to pay hundreds for at retail, is adware. Who would've guessed? I think Lavasoft needs to push out a new version if they're still around that offers to wipe the disk clean if Windows 8 is installed because, after all, it's just a big, glorified, expensive example of what it's fighting.


Microsoft T & Cs in the app store is that you are allowed to define you own pricing architecture.

[q]Literally--for anything good that ever comes to Windows, there are dozens of major, major regressions.[\q]

No there isn't if the Application is built properly using the Windows APIs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Yehppael on Sat 10th Nov 2012 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
Yehppael Member since:
2012-08-01

It's not the money. Fact is, any kind of ads, unobtrusive or not, still work. They might not work as well as a billboard outside your window, but they will.

Found this article from a while back, remember it had lots of interesting stuff.

http://mindhacks.com/2009/03/04/psychology-and-advertising/

The true problem is, one, they'll make loads of money.
Two, people will get used to it to a certain degree.
Three, the system is in place, meaning, you'll see other applications using it, not just Windows built in.
Four, they'll be making loads of money, meaning that system works, so, that means, with this new revenue stream, they'll stop selling Windows and start selling ads.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar
by lucas_maximus on Sat 10th Nov 2012 14:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

How dare a business wants to make money.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Drumhellar"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

How dare a business wants to make money.

There are better ways to earn money than annoying the hell out of potential customers and trying to brainwash people into buying something without any real need for. Like, perhaps, making a good product and actually letting it speak for itself. And reward your customers with the lower non-advertising-inflated sale prices that come from blowing money on advertising in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Drumhellar
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Drumhellar"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

...non-advertising-inflated sale prices that come from not blowing money on advertising in the first place.

Oops. Pretty critical accidental word omission there.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by bassbeast on Tue 13th Nov 2012 07:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

it doesn't matter, ads should be in free versions NOT in an OS you paid $120+ for! And before somebody says "Oh win 8 is only $40" you might want to look at the fine print, just as they sold Win 7 for $50 for 6 months so too is Win 8 gonna go up, only its worse because while you got 6 months to get Win 7 at $50 you have to get Win 8 by Jan 17th or get the shaft on the price PLUS the ads...and people wonder why i say win 8 is gonna bomb?

Oh and ONE of my two predictions has come true! I said that Ballmer and Sinofsky would 'pursue other interests" when Win 8 turned into another Vista and guess what? Sinofsky is outta there YAY!

http://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-says-windows-head-sinofsky-leaving-...

Now that the jerk that ramrodded so many tablet UI centric changes into win 8 is gone all we need now is Ballmer to "pursue other interests" and hopefully the board can get someone with a brain to right the ship. Considering the rumor was Ballmer was grooming Sinofsky to be his replacement I'd say this is a pretty big blow, most likely Sinofsky fell on the sword to try to protect Ballmer, but since we are talking 2 BILLION in ads for a lousy 4 million in sales i don't think its gonna work.

Add to that the fact the other OEMs have delayed (read canceled) their WinRT tablets and I'd say all is not happy in the land of Ballmer and as someone who has worked with Windows since the days of Win 3.x I have to say it couldn't be too soon, the guy is a trainwreck of a CEO.

Reply Score: 2

Adds
by darkcoder on Sat 10th Nov 2012 03:03 UTC
darkcoder
Member since:
2006-07-14

But the problem is that you pay for the OS, and for that, the apps included should not come with adds. Can't talk about iPhones/iPads, but Androids don't have advertising with their Google Maps, GMail, or build in brower.

But more interesting, are all apps write protected by the OS? Because otherwise I foreseen new malware attacking those apps and changing the advertising URL.

Edited 2012-11-10 03:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Adds
by some1 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 03:53 UTC in reply to "Adds"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

To be fair, both Google search and maps show you ads when you search. Gmail app not showing ads is quite nice, considering that the standard web interface does.

If apps are not write protected one can imagine a lot nastier things than replacing ad URL.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Adds
by lucas_maximus on Sat 10th Nov 2012 11:36 UTC in reply to "Adds"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Microsoft allowed app creators to use their own pricing model (which probably includes advertisements).

Microsoft were previously being lambasted for making app development too restrictive ...

Reply Score: 2

No big Surprise from the Kings of Greed
by Lorin on Sat 10th Nov 2012 04:43 UTC
Lorin
Member since:
2010-04-06

The software world has always been that if you pay for the software you do not have to endure advertising, I can expect it on shareware or other freeware but not from software I paid for.

That being said, it is just one more in a long list of reasons to shun Windows 8

Reply Score: 9

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Nothing is making you install that software on Windows 8.

Much like free speech you are allowed to ignore it ... problem solved!

Reply Score: 2

Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

Yeah nothing except the fact that it is installed without an option as part of Metro, but you know that.

Reply Score: 5

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Easily uninstalled.

Reply Score: 1

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

Too bad for Ballmer that Windows is actually something he has to sell and its success will be measured by adoption rates.

Releasing a product that causes this much division and hatred among existing customers is just plain stupid. It would be like McDonald's adding lutefisk to the Big Mac and then telling detractors to "get use to it" because blah blah blah blah talk all f--king day but you're trying to sell something that people don't want.

Like I said before Apple is going to clean up this Christmas. Anyone on the fence about switching to Mac will do so after trying Windows 8. Same goes for people unsure of a laptop or tablet for a gift.

It ain't 1999 anymore, consumers can push back if they don't like what Microsoft is selling.

Edited 2012-11-10 14:11 UTC

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The software world has always been that if you pay for the software you do not have to endure advertising, I can expect it on shareware or other freeware but not from software I paid for.

That being said, it is just one more in a long list of reasons to shun Windows 8


Actually, a great deal of "freeware" is actually FOSS software, also known as freedom software. Freedom software is open source copyleft software, so it is software written by a collaboration of its users. Such software is actually the very last place one would find ads, or any other similar anti-feature.

By its very nature, if a software product is a damaged good (e.g. one that shows ads, aka as adware), then it must be closed source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaged_good

Since the users are the ones who write FOSS software, one must ask why would users include, in collaboration, any features which were against their own best interests as users?

The answer is, they simply wouldn't. To do so would make no sense whatsoever. Most open source freeware is actually freedom software (or FOSS or FLOSS), and it therefore emphatically is not a damaged good, and it does not contain anti-features. Typically one does not have to pay for FOSS software, but even so one does not have to endure advertising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

Edited 2012-11-11 12:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Microsoft's Fight Against Spam
by Brendan on Sat 10th Nov 2012 05:11 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

Remember back about 7 years ago, when Microsoft decided to launch a global anti-spam campaign? Here's a reminder if you forgot: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2003/jun03/06-17spamenfor...

I wonder how that campaign is going. Did Microsoft win?

-Brendan

Reply Score: 2

RE: Microsoft's Fight Against Spam
by Lorin on Sat 10th Nov 2012 05:26 UTC in reply to "Microsoft's Fight Against Spam"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

This would be a good time to take a look at the Windows 8 License to see if by installing it you agree to receive spam, otherwise lawsuit time.

Reply Score: 2

Ads? in MY Windows?
by Morgan on Sat 10th Nov 2012 05:36 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

Well that pretty much sealed the deal for me: I won't be buying Windows 8. My Windows 7 license didn't magically disappear when 8 was released so I'll have it and an old XP license for that side of my workflow.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Ads? in MY Windows?
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 10th Nov 2012 14:35 UTC in reply to "Ads? in MY Windows?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Remove the apps then! The OS is not advertising...Apps that MS thought would be useful for most customers had them.....at the end of the content in the app!

Would you bitch if you bought an app from the app store that advertised to support ongoing data delivery from a 3rd party data aggregation service?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ads? in MY Windows?
by Morgan on Sat 10th Nov 2012 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Ads? in MY Windows?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If I buy an app, you're damn right I'll bitch if I see an ad in it. When a publisher puts out an ad-supported free app and an ad-free paid app, it makes sense. When a publisher keeps ads even in the paid version, they don't get my money. I'm not paying twice for the same thing.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Ads? in MY Windows?
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 10th Nov 2012 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ads? in MY Windows?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

OK....then why are you bitching about some free apps that Microsoft thought would be useful for people to have on their system? Uninstall them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ads? in MY Windows?
by Morgan on Sat 10th Nov 2012 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ads? in MY Windows?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Ahh, but can they be uninstalled? If they are considered core apps then probably not.

But even if they can be uninstalled why should I have to go through the trouble of doing so? I'd rather stick with an uncompromised version of Windows to run alongside my Free OSes, than pay for something that will then throw ads at me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Ads? in MY Windows?
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 10th Nov 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ads? in MY Windows?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Ahh, but can they be uninstalled? If they are considered core apps then probably not.

But even if they can be uninstalled why should I have to go through the trouble of doing so? I'd rather stick with an uncompromised version of Windows to run alongside my Free OSes, than pay for something that will then throw ads at me.

I didn't try experimenting with all of the pre-installed apps, but it does seem that they can, in fact, be uninstalled. I tried a couple of them (specifically, the more useless ones with ads, but IMO they're all pretty useless really). But the simple fact is, they came with the OS. You pay for them when you buy the license to use the OS, so in effect by upgrading your're helping to support this nonsense. So if you already have a copy of Windows 7, you really probably are better off just sticking with that.

All I can tell that Windows 8 truly has over its predecessor is a few speed improvements and a nicer Task Manager, the ability to mount ISO disc images (something virtually every UNIX-like OS has been able to do natively for years...) and maybe a few other extremely minor little details that aren't even worth mentioning... that's pretty much it. Meanwhile, the negatives of the charms bar constantly popping up on the right side of the desktop and all the other Metro annoyances make it poor as far as usability goes as a standard desktop.

Try out the enterprise evaluation copy in a virtual machine to see for yourself if you have 1GB+ (32-bit) or 2GB+ (64-bit) of memory to spare. It works for 90 days, but it can be rearmed once toward the end for a total of up to 180 days. I wouldn't recommend testing any other way unless you have a spare machine laying around somewhere, because this version can not be upgraded to an official retail license.

Edited 2012-11-11 00:19 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Ads? in MY Windows?
by Dave_K on Sun 11th Nov 2012 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ads? in MY Windows?"
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

All I can tell that Windows 8 truly has over its predecessor is a few speed improvements and a nicer Task Manager, the ability to mount ISO disc images (something virtually every UNIX-like OS has been able to do natively for years...) and maybe a few other extremely minor little details that aren't even worth mentioning... that's pretty much it. Meanwhile, the negatives of the charms bar constantly popping up on the right side of the desktop and all the other Metro annoyances make it poor as far as usability goes as a standard desktop.


I'd agree with that 100%.

Even some of the advantages that Windows 8 does have can be added to previous versions of Windows. There's Process Explorer if you need a more advanced task manager, and of course there are freeware utilities to mount ISOs. Ignoring the awful "Modern UI" crap and the removal of the Start Menu, the differences between Windows 7 and 8 are pretty negligible.

As for the speed increase with Windows 8, I suspect some of the perceived responsiveness is down to the removal of transparency, dropshadows and other visual effects from the UI. Turning off those effects was always one of the tricks for speeding up Windows 7 on a slower system. Not that I've tested this for myself when comparing 7 & 8...

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Ads? in MY Windows?
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 11th Nov 2012 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ads? in MY Windows?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

As for the speed increase with Windows 8, I suspect some of the perceived responsiveness is down to the removal of transparency, dropshadows and other visual effects from the UI. Turning off those effects was always one of the tricks for speeding up Windows 7 on a slower system. Not that I've tested this for myself when comparing 7 & 8...

Yep. As far as I can tell, Microsoft finally realized that heavy 3D and transparent glass effects were a huge drain of power and they decided to just ditch Aero. This was in response to their new idea of wanting Windows 8 to run on literally every type of computer they can, not just traditional desktops, including those that are battery-powered and already have limited life.

Unfortunately, this causes a few major compatibility problems for me. I can no longer use KatMouse to get the mouse wheel to behave in a sane way, and I can also no longer use AllSnap to allow snapping of windows both to the edges of the screen and to the sides of other windows. Together, both of these programs helped to make Windows' clunky window manager much more usable to me.

As a bonus, they managed to make all window borders a huge 8 pixels wide, and took out the GUI configuration to change it. So, a third-party application or registry hack is needed to bring it back down to, say, a more respectable and sane two pixels.

Edited 2012-11-11 03:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Ads? in MY Windows?
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 11th Nov 2012 03:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ads? in MY Windows?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

you did not pay for them... they are free in the windows store. MS just decided to include them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Ads? in MY Windows?
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 11th Nov 2012 04:01 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ads? in MY Windows?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

you did not pay for them... they are free in the windows store. MS just decided to include them.

That's a laughable claim. So, what, just because (for example) Microsoft Security Essentials can be downloaded for "free," you're not already paying for the privilege to be able to download and run the software? I mean, do you not need to pay a large amount of money for a Windows license to run a piece of Windows software? And is Microsoft not the sole creator, owner and maintainer of Windows itself?

Being a Microsoft program, does this not mean you're effectively paying for the ability to run the software they provide any additional charge anyway, given such past measures as Windows Genuine Advantage to block non-paying and even Wine-using people from installing? I don't know if WGA is what they're using for their app store (probably not, I'm guessing some server-side authentication), but whatever it is no doubt it provides similar functions.

The way I see it, this is more like Microsoft being generous to their own paying users.

But assuming I did look at the situation the way you are and that they are "free," that means that these "apps" truly are adware in the traditional sense and should be removed by such products as Lavasoft's Ad-Aware. But oh, wait--Windows 8's "C:\Program Files\WindowsApps" directory requires special privileges to access...

But really, wasn't even Microsoft against OEMs stuffing Windows installations like a turkey with slow, bloated, advertising-ridden, resource-hogging crapware? Apparently it's fine when it's them serving it (though to be fair, so far it's only adware).

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Ads? in MY Windows?
by Lorin on Sun 11th Nov 2012 05:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ads? in MY Windows?"
Lorin Member since:
2010-04-06

Legally if they were included in the install you did pay for them

Reply Score: 3

Why is anyone surprised?
by darknexus on Sat 10th Nov 2012 05:59 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Microsoft has been slowly beginning this trend for a while now? Windows live messenger? Office starter? Those two at least, you didn't have to pay for, but the trend has been clear enough. It doesn't affect me one way or the other, as I do not and will not be upgrading to Windows 8 from OS X. That really would be a downgrade ;) .
I'm sure Microsoft's reasoning, if questioned, will go something like this: Well, these apps are free, so we have every right to put ads in them. Even if they weren't "free," Microsoft is absolutely correct. I hate ads, I'll do anything I can to avoid them as much as possible, but it's Microsoft's right to put whatever advertising in their product in whatever capacity they wish. Fortunately, it's also my right, which I'm quite happy to exercise, to flip them the figurative finger and not use their ad-infested crapware.
I see people here talking about a class action. That is not going to be possible unless these ads can be proven to be harmful (e.g. if they're sending unauthorized data about you to third parties or otherwise compromise your security). Then, and only then, has Microsoft done something illegal. Sorry people, but annoying the living hell out of you is not a crime.

Reply Score: 3

Why even bother with metro apps?
by nej_simon on Sat 10th Nov 2012 09:36 UTC
nej_simon
Member since:
2011-02-11

When I install Windows 8 on a computer I always chose to make a local account instead of using a Microsoft account, then I purge all metro (or Windows 8 style) apps.

The only apps that can't get rid of is IE (it can only be uninstalled as a whole, and you need it to download a better browser) and the store but at least you can hide them. You'll have to go to "all apps" to uninstall the reader app as it's not shown on the start screen by default. Otherwise it will launch when you open a pdf in explorer.

Some apps, like google chrome, comes with a metro version but at least for chrome there is a register hack to disable it.

After you've done this metro will only be like a launcher for applications and it works quite well for that, even if it's a bit limited compared to the start menu.

Reply Score: 3

Shocking
by cmost on Sat 10th Nov 2012 12:49 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Gee, a proprietary software package containing ads...just shocking. Eye rolls anyone? Just use Linux.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Shocking
by Drumhellar on Sat 10th Nov 2012 22:00 UTC in reply to "Shocking"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

But, not Ubuntu.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Shocking
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 11th Nov 2012 00:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Shocking"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Yeah. Luckily Ubuntu is only one of the dozen-plus "major" distributions, and there are literally hundreds of others to choose from, and none of them try to force advertising of such important computer tools as laundry detergent and shampoo upon you.

Edited 2012-11-11 00:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Shocking
by lemur2 on Sun 11th Nov 2012 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Shocking"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

But, not Ubuntu.


One however can simply use Kubuntu (or Ubuntu with the kde-plasma-desktop meta-package installed) to avoid ads.

Kubuntu (Ubuntu base but with KDE4 desktop) is sponsored by Blue Systems.

http://www.kubuntu.org/news/kubuntu-to-be-sponsored-by-blue-systems

http://blue-systems.com/

"Blue Systems’ goal is to advance Free and Libre Software Projects.

Currently we are supporting the development of the following projects:
Kubuntu
MintKDE
Netrunner

KDE Homerun
KDE Folderview
Firefox KDE
Muon Discover
Aurorae 3 for KWin
rekonq (Browser)
kde-gtk-config
kcm webaccounts
kcm samba-mounter"


Netrunner is Blue Systems' own distribution, based on Kubuntu. MintKDE is Linux Mint but with a KDE desktop, it is also based on Kubuntu. I think Linux Mint has a deal with Bing and/or Yahoo, so it is not entirely advertising free. But Kubuntu and Netrunner certainly both are advertising free (and zero cost as well), and they both benefit from the 60,000+ free (as in zero cost) and adware-free packages available from the Ubuntu and related repositories.

Edited 2012-11-11 12:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

The Adware formally known as Metro
by ze_jerkface on Sat 10th Nov 2012 13:50 UTC
ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

Well now you little Microsoft fanboys know why I was calling this adware from day one.

Of course they were going to mimic the Xbox dash and put ads in Metro. That was probably how Sinofsky talked Ballmer into forcing this POS adware screen.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 10th Nov 2012 14:12 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why is anyone here surprised? if you're going to access the website via an application rather than going to the actual website the take guess as to why they've included ads. The movement is to provide access to data from a website and through an application then someone/something has to pay for delivery of that data hence advertisements. For me, as long as those advertisements are non-intrusive then I'm more than happy to have said advertisements if it means that the said services remain free of charge.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 10th Nov 2012 14:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

what?!?! A reasonable voice on OS News in a Microsoft story?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by nej_simon on Sat 10th Nov 2012 15:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

That's true for free apps. These are apps that access microsoft's services and you've already payed for that by buying windows. A lot of apps are like that, they have a free version with ads and a paid version without. Similar to sites where you can browse without ads if you buy an account.

Edited 2012-11-10 16:00 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 11th Nov 2012 03:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

And if they did not include them? They are free in the windows store so it seems to me that they were not paid for but simply included.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sun 11th Nov 2012 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

That's true for free apps. These are apps that access microsoft's services and you've already payed for that by buying windows. A lot of apps are like that, they have a free version with ads and a paid version without. Similar to sites where you can browse without ads if you buy an account.


These services have on going costs - how is a one off sale going to cover the costs of a service over the life time of the product? regarding your 'paid version' again they're not accessing a service which reoccurring costs of the business - you're comparing Apples to oranges. Regarding your example of an account - that only works because you don't pay a once off fee but pay a subscription which pays for the reoccurring costs.

Edited 2012-11-11 12:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 10th Nov 2012 18:43 UTC
RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by Brendan on Sat 10th Nov 2012 21:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Advertising is a many-tentacled evil searching the world and filling every crevice. You can't escape. It will not stop until your wallet, your time and your bandwidth are all constantly being leached.

Unless being subjected to advertising is the only payment you make for using a product or service; advertising is not acceptable and never was. There are no exceptions.

- Brendan

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sat 10th Nov 2012 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Advertising is a many-tentacled evil searching the world and filling every crevice. You can't escape. It will not stop until your wallet, your time and your bandwidth are all constantly being leached.

I agree.

Unless being subjected to advertising is the only payment you make for using a product or service; advertising is not acceptable and never was. There are no exceptions.

My post made absolutely no mention of whether or not this type of stuff is acceptable. I simply pointed out the obvious, that no matter what the subject is, people always have something bad to say if Microsoft is involved.... ALWAYS.

I'm not sure if you disagree with me or not because that's the only thing I stated and you made no mention of it what-so-ever. That being the case, I'm not sure why you replied to my post.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Brendan on Sun 11th Nov 2012 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

I'm not sure if you disagree with me or not because that's the only thing I stated and you made no mention of it what-so-ever. That being the case, I'm not sure why you replied to my post.


In response to an article about advertising and Microsoft/Windows; you suggest that people are complaining simply because Microsoft is involved (and by extension, that people aren't complaining because of advertising).

In response to your response; I suggest that people are complaining simply because of inappropriate advertising (and by extension, that people aren't complaining simply because Microsoft is responsible, and that you were wrong).

- Brendan

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Sun 11th Nov 2012 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I'm not sure if you disagree with me or not because that's the only thing I stated and you made no mention of it what-so-ever. That being the case, I'm not sure why you replied to my post.

In response to an article about advertising and Microsoft/Windows; you suggest that people are complaining simply because Microsoft is involved (and by extension, that people aren't complaining because of advertising).

I neither said nor implied people aren't complaining because of advertising. That is something you injected yourself. I made no reference to the advertising complaint.

In response to your response; I suggest that people are complaining simply because of inappropriate advertising (and by extension, that people aren't complaining simply because Microsoft is responsible, and that you were wrong).

When you read a post and start inserting words or ideas that don't actually exist in that post, then construct replies based on that, you are basically replying to nothing, as is the case here.

Btw, at least a few people here have admitted they bash Microsoft simply because it's Microsoft regardless of the degree to which there's a legitimate complaint (or not). Therefore, what I posted is 100% accurate and in line with what people have admitted themselves. So no, I'm not wrong.

Reply Score: 2

The special promo
by darkcoder on Sat 10th Nov 2012 20:33 UTC
darkcoder
Member since:
2006-07-14

Maybe in the states the Windows 8 promo is for $49.95, but where I live it's available for $69.95. And paying $70 bucks for adds in software where normally software sold lacks advertising, is no fun at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The special promo
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 11th Nov 2012 03:17 UTC in reply to "The special promo"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

So...you are buying Finance and sports and news?

REMOVE THE FREE APPS...then you don't have a problem.

I bought a car from Ford and they had the gall to have ads for other cars and services they sell....heck...they even gave me a promo Sirius subscription that now advertises on my useless sat stations in my radio...DAMN THEM!

Reply Score: 2

privacy concern
by TechGeek on Sun 11th Nov 2012 04:04 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

I think a more important question rather than price is privacy. How much info do these apps have access to? Browsers have safe guards to prevent access to the system by any web content (whether they actually work or not is another problem). But how much access do these apps have? And will they be able to collect information even when you aren't using them? (by having a piece that is always running in the background)

Reply Score: 3

Who cares
by biffuz on Sun 11th Nov 2012 13:33 UTC
biffuz
Member since:
2006-03-27

I just updated two machines to 8, and after playing a bit with Metro, I just reduced it to a glorified desktop app launcher. I'm thinking of trying one of those Start Menu replacements, actually.
For those services (weather, news, finance...) there are a lot of websites which does a better job. And with AdBlock, they're absolutely pleasant to browse.

Reply Score: 2

Windows is different
by Nelson on Sun 11th Nov 2012 18:18 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

In fact, that only true, unseverable "app" in the OS is the Windows Store itself.

IE can be uninstalled, Bing can be uninstalled, People, Chat, and Email can be uninstalled, Finance can be uninstalled.

Windows, the WinRT platform, and the Windows Store have enabled unprecedented control over your system. All Windows "apps" are consumers of the WinRT API, meaning, anything they can do, someone else can probably do (and possibly better).

Don't like Bing News app having ads? Download a different News app.

On the Windows Store, the monetization scheme is entirely up to the developer, in this case, the Bing Team who has ownership over the apps.

If the advertisements (which you need to scroll all the way to the left, and consume almost no bandwidth) bother you THAT much (and you're not just being fucking ridiculous and grandstanding, which is what I suspect) then you can vote them off the island and uninstall the app. That simple.

People in the comments act like the ads are a bandwidth consuming 1080p YouTube video. Give me a break.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Windows is different
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 12th Nov 2012 10:57 UTC in reply to "Windows is different"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

If the advertisements (which you need to scroll all the way to the left, and consume almost no bandwidth) bother you THAT much (and you're not just being f--king ridiculous and grandstanding, which is what I suspect) then you can vote them off the island and uninstall the app. That simple.

That will happen soon enough when my enterprise evaluation copy expires, at which time I will simply delete the two partitions Windows made and put a single new partition in its place to use as another data partition for my other, "main" operating system. I haven't been using Windows 8 at all lately though, so I doubt that I'll even bother rearming it for another 80 days.

It was fun for a few days, but the novelty has completely wore off and now I just want to actually get stuff done without having to deal with that operating system's bizarre, unnatural two-faced interface. Now it's just boring and its quirks (specifically, its complete lack of consistency and that damn "Charms" bar) are amongst some of the biggest pains in the ass I've ever experienced from a Windows operating system.

People in the comments act like the ads are a bandwidth consuming 1080p YouTube video. Give me a break.

If you've been reading at all, you'd realize the point flew right past your head. I don't care if they are 2KB files; I don't want that shit running on my computer. There's a reason I use Adblock Plus, NoScript, Do Not Track Plus and disable third-party cookies in addition to enabling the joke that is the DNT header, as well as avoid TV and radio, and register any phone number I get with the National Do Not Call Registry... I simply want nothing to do with that annoying garbage in my life, especially if it is taking up my own resources, which aren't free.

I have my own brain and the ability to use it to think for myself and do my own research, from far more informative and less-biased resources than a company's own expensive marketing campaigns. I can make up my own damn mind on what I want to buy without being brainwashed.

Edited 2012-11-12 11:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Windows is different
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 12th Nov 2012 11:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows is different"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

By the way, I seriously doubt IE is actually "uninstalled" when you remove the IE "app" for Metro. Just like the good ol' U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust days. At this point, uninstalling it would probably cause too many problems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Windows is different
by Nelson on Mon 12th Nov 2012 15:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows is different"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The rendering engine is used for WinJS apps and WebView for WinRT, so the rendering engine is never removed, that is true. That kind of grasping at straws though.

Reply Score: 2

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest....
by jnemesh on Mon 12th Nov 2012 20:55 UTC
jnemesh
Member since:
2008-04-08

I could have told you this was coming...(I did, in several blog comments elsewhere!). The XBOX 360 has had ads served up in it's "Live Tiles" for quite some time now. I am surprised that it took customers this long to figure out that this was where it is heading on the desktop as well.

Linux is looking better every day....

Reply Score: 1