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 581739
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by nt_jerkface on Mon 27th Jan 2014 00:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

In a world of shipping schedules and deadlines I can understand why large monolithic legacy codebases weren't a priority.


Which codebase? Win32? It shipped with RT and just like the .NET framework it was artificially restricted from external developers.

Or Windows Phone? They couldn't provide a subset of Win32 like they did with Windows Mobile?

It actually took more work for them to come up with WinRT since the Win32 subset was already mature. There was also the .NET compact framework.

Let's review what existed before the iPhone:

1. Microsoft was a smartphone leader in marketshare.

2. Microsoft was a leader in portable APIs.

Hmmmm what to do with this situation? I know, THROW IT ALL AWAY. Yes that is what they did. But who am I to question such a strategy. Windows Phones are clearly a massive hit. I even saw one in public last year!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 27th Jan 2014 01:55 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I was speaking about replicating functionality as a WinRT API, not existing Win32 APIs which don't respect the concurrency, application, or security model of Windows RT.

So your rant is entirely unnecessary. Go home jerkface.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by nt_jerkface on Mon 27th Jan 2014 04:15 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I was speaking about replicating functionality as a WinRT API, not existing Win32 APIs which don't respect the concurrency, application, or security model of Windows RT.

So your rant is entirely unnecessary. Go home jerkface.


Sinofsky couldn't explain how exactly WinRT was better than Win32 at power efficiency. In fact that was a question he avoided.

Microsoft's position was:
Win32 is inefficient but we won't talk specifics and though you can't port your Win32 applications we will be porting Office. Any further questions will be deleted.

Windows 8 is built on lies and you still haven't figured that out. Sinofsky was a trendster and hated Win32 and .NET for being "legacy" even if he couldn't explain why that was bad.

I still can't believe you're defending the regime of idiocy.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by zima on Fri 31st Jan 2014 20:02 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's review what existed before the iPhone:
1. Microsoft was a smartphone leader in marketshare.

Incorrect, the marketshare leader was Symbian. MS always had rather modest share.

Reply Parent Score: 2