Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Jan 2014 20:17 UTC
Windows

One more tidbit about Windows 8.1 Update 1 from my aforementioned source: Update 1 may feature some of the work that Microsoft has been doing behind the scenes to reduce further the memory and disk space requirements for Windows. This would allow Windows 8.1 Update 1 to run on cheaper small tablets.

Windows 8.1 Update 1, screen shots of which leaked earlier this week, is expected to allow users to pin Metro-style/Windows Store apps to their desktop task bars. Thumbnail previews of these Metro-style apps will be available from the Desktop task bar, according to additional screen shots. Windows 8.1 Update 1 also is expected to include close boxes for Metro-style apps.

Seems like some welcome changes, but it's going to take a lot more for people to warm up to Metro. The biggest problem to me is that since there aren't any compelling Metro applications, there's simply no reason to put with its idiosyncrasies, especially on desktops. I cannot think of a single Metro application that is better than its desktop counterpart, nor is there any Metro application that is better than similar applications on competing platforms.

Developers need users, and users need developers. Right now - Metro seems to lacks both.

Permalink for comment 581834
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by nt_jerkface on Mon 27th Jan 2014 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

None of what you described requires a new API.

Windows can already allocate and limit cpu access.

Rogue programs can be controlled through signatures and or repositories/stores.

It can all be done without a new API or even a new version of Windows. You could lock-down XP like iOS if you really wanted. You could have it throttle or kill any program that taxes the cpu. The possibilities are endless.

WinRT was created for non-technical reasons. The person behind irrationally rejected existing libraries and refused to engage us developers in discussion.

Reply Parent Score: 2