Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 6th Apr 2008 09:38 UTC, submitted by Francis Kuntz
Windows Ars analyses the concept of a modular Windows, and concludes: "Modularization - and the discriminatory pricing it permits - might appeal to accountants and economists. But it is bad for consumers, bad for Windows, and ultimately, bad for Microsoft. A modularized Windows, or worse still, a modularized subscription-based Windows, undermines the purpose and value of the Windows OS. If it comes to pass it will surely sound the death knell of the entire Windows platform."
Permalink for comment 308449
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Most modules are terrible anyway
by tdemj on Sun 6th Apr 2008 22:26 UTC
tdemj
Member since:
2006-01-03

I don't know about you, but I don't care about most of the Windows modules. As long as I can execute applications, I'm fine.

Media Player? It's horribly outdated, I can't use the keyboard to skip or pause, it can't play AVI without installing DivX. I'll just use 3rd party.

The same can be told about Calculator, SoundRecorder, Backup, Notepad, WordPad, Paint, Messenger, Outlook Express, Picture Viewer, Internet Explorer and even Window Explorer. I don't use any of those, because even the worst freeware beats them in features and usability.

I can always run Apache instead of IIS. Yes, Apache can be configured to run ASP.NET too using one more level of indirection. I don't trust the built-in encryption, only TrueCrypt. OpenOffice is not any worse than Microsoft Office. The best Microsoft product is Visual Studio 2008, but that's free anyway.

Other than the kernel and the windowing subsystem, the only module that we really need is DirectX. As a home user, I refuse to pay subscription for anything else. As a developer, my company gets everything via MSDN subscription.

Reply Score: 1