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.

Thread beginning with comment 581738
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by nt_jerkface on Mon 27th Jan 2014 00:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

In my opinion Microsoft made a lot of strategic errors in how they would lure developers to their new platform.


I think the strategy was "make a shiny new API" which is the opposite of what made sense.

The entire new WinRT system was designed to make it as easy as possible for C# devs to migrate, but this move seem to have failed.


It actually wasn't. Easy as possible would mean to open the full .NET framework. Sinofsky however was anti-.NET and refused to answer technical questions as to why he wanted WinRT apps to be separate.

I think part of the reason has been that the typical C# developer does web applications and they didn't switch to App development over night as Microsoft had hoped.


The typical C# developer works on internal applications. Shrinkwrapped applications are still mostly written in Win32 since that was what they were started in. Photoshop, Autocad, etc.

The fact that Microsoft themselves had to make an explicit exception for Microsoft Office shows just how much work they were asking to be rewritten.


And Sinofsky wouldn't talk about that either. No .NET framework and yet Microsoft doesn't have to re-write Office (a Win32 application)? Yea those questions were deleted.

You are right that none of it made sense. Microsoft has been managed by total idiots. It's no surprise that everything has transpired as it has. Developers were absolutely livid during the Windows 8 development period and the strategy of the Windows 8 team was to suppress and censor. Microsoft still hasn't learned that the smartest developers are outside the company. The amount of hubris that resides in Redmond is phenomenal. They really thought a combination of censorship and self-praise would make all the criticism from developers go away.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 27th Jan 2014 01:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

"Developers were livid" quantified by a few comments on a company blog. Amazing the delusional state you operate in.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by nt_jerkface on Mon 27th Jan 2014 04:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

"Developers were livid" quantified by a few comments on a company blog. Amazing the delusional state you operate in.


I'm deluded? Windows 8 is a flop, Surface is a flop, WinRT is a flop, Windows Phone is a flop, Sinofsky and Ballmer have been fired and here you are questioning my connection to reality while trying to defend pieces of this failed floptastic strategy that has brought nothing but shame and embarrassment to Windows developers.

I have the track record when it comes to predicting Microsoft flops while you have the record of whoring for every single Microsft product and strategy even if the majority of Windows developers are calling it f---ing stupid.

Anyways here is what happened to the developers that went along with this stupid plan:
http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/354457/windows-8-developers-...

The rest of us remained livid and went back to developing Win32 and .NET software.

Everyone on this website can see what a shameless whore you are. I don't mind you being a whore for money/crack/whatever but I draw the line when you try to gloss over actions on the part of Microsoft that were clearly angering the majority of Windows developers.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by dpJudas on Mon 27th Jan 2014 08:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

I think the strategy was "make a shiny new API" which is the opposite of what made sense.

Microsoft always loves making new APIs, no doubt about that. However I think the motivation overall was a bit deeper than this.

The way I see it, one of the main lessons learned by Windows Mobile and the first iPhone was that simply shrinking a desktop UI to a small screen device produces a poor user experience. Apple deliberately wrote a different API for the iPhone (Cocoa Touch) because virtually none of the user interface concepts for a mouse work well for touch.

What I think Microsoft did wrong was to go completely overboard when copying this, and also not understand that a touch UI doesn't work well for a mouse either. Sharing the UI between desktop and touch makes very little sense.

It actually wasn't. Easy as possible would mean to open the full .NET framework. Sinofsky however was anti-.NET and refused to answer technical questions as to why he wanted WinRT apps to be separate.

Easy as possible within the constraints they had given themselves. Part of the problem with supporting the full .NET framework is that in a sense a large portion of it is a thin wrapper around Win32 functionality. So what they chose to do was to drop every part of .NET that relied on Win32. Otherwise they had to port themselves. ;)

In a way you could say they dropped support for so many things that their new OS wasn't really Windows anymore. Everyone had to port.

And Sinofsky wouldn't talk about that either. No .NET framework and yet Microsoft doesn't have to re-write Office (a Win32 application)? Yea those questions were deleted.

The fact that Microsoft has to make an exception for Office is half my point of my original post. When nobody can afford to port, then nobody will port and Microsoft ends up having no applications for their fancy new platform. No amount of patience or Microsoft money will help here.

Reply Parent Score: 2