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."
Thread beginning with 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 It's horribly outdated, I can't use the keyboard to skip or pause, it can't play AVI without installing DivX.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

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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 It's horribly outdated, I can't use the keyboard to skip or pause, it can't play AVI without installing DivX.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.


You can take this concept even further.

Why do you need the Windows file manager, explorer, and window manager (the GUI) ... just install KDE 4 for Windows and it will give you all that. Install Samba4, CUPS, FileZilla and Putty for your networking. Install VLC and Amarok on Windows for your media player solution. Install OpenOffice or KOffice 2 for your Office suite, Thunderbird or Evolution or KDE PIM, Pidgin or Kopete, and Firefox or Opera or Safari or Konqueror for internet and have your entire desktop as non-Microsoft modular addons.

In fact ... if you don't want games and directx, you can completely avoid having to subscribe for any software at all by installing Linux in the first place. Buy your computer with a blank hard disk (or perhaps with Linux pre-installed) and avoid any software charges altogether.

Edited 2008-04-07 04:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yeah. VLC is a much better player in my opinion. Even Linux has better media players (if you've got all the codecs) than windows media player.

Reply Parent Score: 2

trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I am not sure, but you might not be allowed to use third party software. For example, if you have not purchased media player, media playing might be disabled completely (in kernel ?) somehow ? You might need to pay for media playing ability even if you are using third party application.

I am only guessing, but it would be Microsoft-like. On the other hand they could get hit by anti monopoly regulations in that case.

Is there anybody here who has a little more information ?

DG

Reply Parent Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think they would lock media playing ability in the "core" when subscription Media Player lacks.

It would be far more inconspicuous to just strip the audio subsystem out of Windows and bundle this with MS audio applications (Media player, sound recorder, volume mixer, etc.) as the multimedia subscription pack.

You want to play audio via Amarok? No problem, subscribe to the multimedia subscription pack and you get the audio subsystem + a lot of neat useful MS tools for $ 9.99 per month.

And that is if they can resist the urge to entangle the "separate" modules with each other by quirky dependencies. E.g. Gaming depends on Multimedia, Visual, Network and Utilities. Productivity depends on Multimedia, Network, Utilities and Visual. Network depends on Utilities. Maintenance depends on Utitlies and Network.

Yes, it would be modular but you'd need practically all to be functional.

Reply Parent Score: 2