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

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 581758
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Nelson
by nt_jerkface on Mon 27th Jan 2014 04:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Nelson"
Member since:

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[6]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Mon 27th Jan 2014 09:26 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:

Nothing about WinRT is implicitly power efficient, but the enforcement of the application model is what's efficient.

If you've ever used a non Windows RT Windows tablet you'd know why that's important. I've had a rogue legacy program chew through like 20% of my battery in an hour. Where as my Surface always has consistent battery life, and won't get filled to the brim with crapware over time.

The Surface still runs the way it did when it cane out of the box, my W510 has gotten slower over time.

Its less about the performance per watt of the API and more about the predictability of the app model.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by nt_jerkface on Mon 27th Jan 2014 23:29 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
nt_jerkface Member since:

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