Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Jul 2014 12:17 UTC
Windows

There's a lot of information coming out about the future versions of Windows - and it's looking like Microsoft is listening to its users. First and foremost, it seems like the Metro interface will be disabled completely when Windows runs on traditional laptops and desktops; however, Metro applications will still run in windows on the desktop.

The Desktop/laptop SKU of Threshold will include, as previously rumored, the Mini-Start menu - a new version of the traditional Microsoft Start menu, an early concept of which Microsoft showed off at the company's Build developers conference in April. It also will include the ability to run Metro-Style/Windows Store apps in windows on the Desktop. Will it turn off completely the Metro-Style Start screen with its live-tile interface, as Neowin is reporting, and make the tiled Start Menu a toggleable option from the Mini Start menu? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Meanwhile, convertible devices will work pretty much like Windows 8.x does today, switching between the two modes. Microsoft will also do the inevitable: merge its phone and tablet operating system into one product.

The combined Phone/Tablet SKU of Threshold won't have a Desktop environment at all, but still will support apps running side by side, my sources are reconfirming. This "Threshold Mobile" SKU will work on ARM-based Windows Phones (not just Lumias), ARM-based Windows tablets and, I believe, Intel-Atom-based tablets.

These are all looking like some very decent changes, and something they should have done from the get-go. In fact - they should have never tried to shove Metro down desktop user's throats to begin with. They should have moved Windows Phone over to NT (which they did anyway), and scale that up to tablets.

I am, though, quite interested in what the Metro-on-desktop apologists are going to say now. For entertainment value, of course!

Thread beginning with comment 591650
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
charlieg
Member since:
2005-07-25

The reason MS have a virtual Monopoly is more related to the fractured nature of the Linux desktop, and the exorbitant prices Apple charge nowadays.


Oh right, because Linux and Apple failed to keep pace with Windows in the 90s, right?

Talk about over- and mis- simplifying a situation.

Windows/Microsoft are dominant because of extensive (and extensively documented*) illegal business practises that resulted in billions of dollars of fines, which were a drop in the ocean of the profits said business practises reaped. Once monopoly was achieved and the bank balance was bursting, how was any company going to be able to realistically compete?

* http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653

Apple had to carve out their own niche market with a brand based on quality and style by focusing on a few strong products that appealed to its fan base.

As for the fractured nature of Linux, that's what happens when you drop tens of thousands of academic volunteers in a bucket each with their own brainchild and agenda. It has become better through the businesses that have emerged from the soup but you can't expect hundreds of businesses to evolve a single cohesive product between them.

Despite this diverse community behind it, Linux has been stable in a way Windows admins could only dream of and hence Linux has always been strong on the server market despite intense lobbying and the investment of billions by Microsoft.

You should read a little more before dismissing open source. It is a train that even the almighty Microsoft can not stop.

Reply Parent Score: -2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows was still simply a better option than others in the 90s. Linux was not yet ready for casual users (many would argue it's not ready still)

Reply Parent Score: 2