Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 1st Sep 2012 21:15 UTC
Windows The Verge published a video demonstrating how desktop mode and Office 2013 - a desktop application - work on Windows RT, the ARM version of Windows 8. The video showed a desktop mode that clearly didn't work well for touch, and even Office 2013, which has a rudimentary touch mode built-in, didn't work properly either. It looked and felt clunky, often didn't respond properly, and even showed touch lag.
Thread beginning with comment 533575
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Window opportuniry
by darknexus on Sun 2nd Sep 2012 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Window opportuniry"
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Lol FreeBSD.

The BSDs are way behind Linux in every way, WTF are you talking about?

I would bother to answer except for two things: this thread is about Windows and the fact that you do not include any actual evidence as to how the BSDs are so behind Linux. People who make said claims must present evidence to be taken seriously. I simply claimed that the *BSDs were a complete operating system designed with the goal of each component going with every other component. This, if you have even used a BSD for five seconds, is obvious. That alone puts it ahead of Linux for desktop use, as the various parts of the os must work together for a smooth and consistent user experience. Windows has this, *BSDs also have this, as does OS X. Linux does not and, until it does and until the community acknowledges this, desktop GNU/Linux will go absolutely nowhere. As long as it's possible to brick your system with a simple security update that prevents X.org from running (yes, I've seen that and to an average user that is a bricked system) you'll gain no traction. Ignoring it, or shouting at we "haters" who point this stuff out won't help. We don't do it out of malice, you know. Plenty of us, including me, would love to see a real alternative to Windows on generic hardware emerge and if there were ever a time for that to happen, it is now. Either it happens now, or it doesn't happen for another twenty years. I don't need to remind anyone here that, if Microsoft has their way with secure boot, that might be twenty years too late.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Window opportuniry
by tuma324 on Sun 2nd Sep 2012 06:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Window opportuniry"
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

Are you claiming that BSDs have the advantage that the kernel and user-space are made by the same people?

What about Linux and things like Wayland and systemd? Those are Linux-only and were designed for Linux in mind.

Anyway, I can see the advantage of having an unified system but I don't think the NIH Syndrome is an advantage, but to each his own I guess.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Window opportuniry
by Soulbender on Sun 2nd Sep 2012 07:10 in reply to "RE[4]: Window opportuniry"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Anyway, I can see the advantage of having an unified system but I don't think the NIH Syndrome is an advantage


Because there's no NIH syndrome in the linux camp. Right.
Case in point: upstart vs systemd vs runit/daemontools. Why the need for systemd when we already had upstart? Why the need for upstart when runit/daemontools have been around for a very long time.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Window opportuniry
by TechGeek on Sun 2nd Sep 2012 17:23 in reply to "RE[3]: Window opportuniry"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

darknexus: I don't know what OS you normally use, but you seem to be talking about Linux from years ago. I run Fedora on the desktop, and while I have run into some issues, none of them were ever bad enough to keep me from being able to use the system. Part of the issue is that Linux is constantly updating. Linux is under continual advancement. Windows goes years between versions. OS X goes at least a year. About your concerns:

-While X is certainly a bit old, it has enterprise features that other OS's still don't support, especially when it comes to multi user systems, which Windows and OS X are NOT.

-I have used pulse since it was put in Fedora. In at least the last 2 years I haven't had a single problem.

-Your kernel API's are going to change. Its a fact of life. They do in Windows and OS X as well. Your user space APIs are stable. I can run software that was produced half a decade ago with no problems. (like Loki games).

I won't deny that Linux has some issues to work out to get to the desktop. But its not as bad as you make it out to be. Half or more of the problem you listed will never affect normal desktop users anyway. The key here is that if the user is going to have to learn a new system (ie WIndows RT) then they could just as easily learn a new Linux OS.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: Window opportuniry
by darknexus on Sun 2nd Sep 2012 18:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Window opportuniry"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

darknexus: I don't know what OS you normally use, but you seem to be talking about Linux from years ago. I run Fedora on the desktop, and while I have run into some issues, none of them were ever bad enough to keep me from being able to use the system. Part of the issue is that Linux is constantly updating. Linux is under continual advancement.

You've just said it yourself. Most people don't want to be constantly updating, and they're quite content to have a few years between versions. The bleeding edge is called that for a reason, you know.

-While X is certainly a bit old, it has enterprise features that other OS's still don't support, especially when it comes to multi user systems, which Windows and OS X are NOT.

Hmm, where to begin? First, the home user doesn't care one bit if their os has enterprise features. What they se is this: graphics crashed, all my programs went down with it. They do not care if it's because of unstable half-implemented video drivers, nor that some enterprise-level feature is present. They want it to work and do so relatively reliably. X, due to a combination of age and driver instability, is not reliable enough on an unpredictable home user situation. Yes, you can do amazing things with it on the corporate desktop but, to 99% of users, those features will never see the light of day. The other 1%… well, they're already using X.org aren't they? As for multi-user systems… you accuse me of talking about the Linux from years ago. I'll come right back and say you are talking about the Windows from years ago, and OS X? OS X was built on a UNIX userland (FreeBSD-based to be precise) from day one. You do not get much more multi-user than that and yes, I have administered Macs in a multi-user configuration. They are just as multi-user as Linux with X.org, with the advantage of easy configuration in most situations. If you can claim, with a straight face, that OS X and Windows (at least the NT-based versions) are not multi-user, then I'm sorry but I have to take away your geek card. ;)

I have used pulse since it was put in Fedora. In at least the last 2 years I haven't had a single problem.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't do much audio recording or editing, and that you don't use VOIP software to keep in contact with people. Sure, you can play your music through Pulse and usually it will work, but for recording or gaming the latency is just staggering.

Your kernel API's are going to change. Its a fact of life. They do in Windows and OS X as well. Your user space APIs are stable. I can run software that was produced half a decade ago with no problems. (like Loki games).

That doesn't matter if distro x (Ubuntu, I'm looking at you) decides to patch glibc and break binary compatibility. It does happen. Add to that, drivers are not stable in Linux, by which I mean that I cannot simply download a driver and load it. No, it has to match the kernel version and compilation that I have in whichever distribution I'm running. That's ridiculous. I can run drivers, 32-bit ones at least, on Windows 7 now that were created when XP was released. It's not recommended of course, but there are times when it just has to be done. I don't care, and neither does the average user, about what happens to the internal kernel APIs. That's not what I'm talking about. If you are going to change those internal APIs though, you need to keep the external interfaces the same (a userland for drivers if you will). This is what Windows and OS X do, and guess what, it works. All the user has to do is download a driver for their version of the os (or the closest available if there isn't one), install it, and go. It's not that simple in Linux and, until it is, no one except developers and corporate IT departments will adopt it. It will never be that simple because maintaining such a stable external API isn't fun. It's that 20% that no one in the Linux community ever want to do because it doesn't have the shiny factor.

I won't deny that Linux has some issues to work out to get to the desktop. But its not as bad as you make it out to be. Half or more of the problem you listed will never affect normal desktop users anyway.

Come back when you've actually tech supported normal users on Linux as I have. Every problem I've listed is a recurring theme and has been for the last ten years, with the exception of Pulseaudio which is newer. It works for you. It can work for me. We both have the technical knowledge to fix it when something unexpected happens. Most people do not and, while both Windows and OS X can and do break, overall they break far less often. The breakage needs to keep to a minimum for a home desktop and, though programmers don't like to hear it, that means giving up new feature X and fixing old bugs in their programs. It's not fun. It's not rewarding. You'll never get recognized for fixing bugs and keeping stability. It is necessary, however, and this concept is fundamental to the desktop experience.

Reply Parent Score: 4