Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
Domo Domo....
315 Followers
Scenic Anemia
2645 Followers
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
Mennayar{Back}
2299 Followers
MikeFrankel
1669 Followers
kitsuaJun 29, 2010
At least now, with Windows 7, we have reason to be interested in the future of the platform. Vista really did have me worried for a bit.
homercles337Jun 29, 2010
I take it you never used Vista. You should try something before you bash it.
kitsuaJun 29, 2010
I've tried it plenty and know all about it thank you and for my purposes Vista was a complete washout (I use my Windows machine for my main workstation and have particular requirements for the work I do on it). Windows 7 is Vista made right and shows me that Microsoft can get their act together and make real progress with their OS. It gives me hope for the future of the platform, which was wavering due to the debacle of Vista.
Closed AccountJun 29, 2010
What are you f**king high?
"Try Vista before you bash it."
How about the entire world panned it? That enough for ya?
homercles337Jun 29, 2010
Like i said, obviously neither of you have used Vista. With my old rig i went from XP to Vista x64, with zero issues--this was right after Vista came out. I also run Vista x64 at work--im a computational scientist. Just like Apple can get unwarranted praise in the media for their s**t products, Vista has gotten unwarranted bashing from the media. For you to say Vista is a step back is f**king retarded.
verdanicJun 29, 2010
@homercles337
Shut up. Kitsua said they've used it. Your opinion doesn't win.
Now you can have my opinion too: Tried Vista AFTER SP1 came out for one week on my multimedia machine (it's not on a TV, but its primary use is gaming and various videos, followed by any web development related tasks for which I need windows). It was an absolutely nightmare. I can't really remember the specifics, this was a couple years ago now I suppose, but it failed in most ways an OS could possibly fail. Unstable, s**tty GUI (a bunch of which made it through to Win 7), a pile of apps I use regularly weren't able to function properly despite regular updates (work fine on 7). Finally, forget gaming altogether. Just forget it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dudz2888Jun 29, 2010
Im with you @homercles337 I went from XP pro to Vista Ultimate without any problems whatsoever.
kitsuaJun 29, 2010
Oy.
Look, it's not hard to understand; people have had different experiences with Vista depending on their situation and needs and I'm one of those people.
I'm a composer and sound engineer and my workstation has a specific set of requirements in order to ensure reliability and compatibility, based around very specific software and hardware configurations. Stability, compatibility and power are paramount for what I built this machine for and all other considerations are largely irrelevant. At the moment I run XP SP3 stripped right down to basics just running my DAW and connecting my various bits of studio kit.
Vista added nothing but issues with hardware, drivers, permissions and software incompatibilities for a long time. At the same time it required more from your system to run, taking away precious power and resources from the heavy workload I demand for my everyday work. It was in every way a backwards step for my needs - more problems and less power with little to no advantage. The music and audio industry as a whole largely avoided it and with plenty of good reason.
With Windows 7 the basic idea that Vista was based on was refined and honed and the UI became something far more satisfying, finally including some interesting and useful evolution of the task bar and windows management. What's more software developers and drivers caught up with the game and the whole thing is smoother, more secure, less problematic and, most importantly, has been shown to deliver great performance whilst performing certain real-time audio tasks which is of the most importance to my specific situation.
You'll note that I said nothing inflammatory or ignorant in my original comments, simply gave my own, perfectly relevant viewpoint which you've forced me to laboriously validate. You're the ones without the imagination to understand that your own experience is not necessarily the same as everyone else.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
I'm sorry your 2001 compaq didn't run smoothly with Vista. Obviously a s**tty OS /s.
factorof13Jun 30, 2010
I'm using Vista right now, and I agree that it is a step backwards in a number of ways. I have no problems with stability, but the menus and interface in general leave a lot to be desired. I still haven't used 7, so I can't comment on that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ljseinfeldJun 30, 2010
I've said it before.. Vista was a joke --and a bad one.
Felt more like a gift from MS to the hardware vendors...
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Yeah, Vista sucks.
But the reason I say that is because I don't feel at home. The toolset sucks, the installed software off the bat sucks, it's slow and inconvenient for most things, and I hate using the mouse.
But what the f**k do I know?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kitsuaJun 30, 2010
harrison: My self-built workstation can handle it just fine, but why would I want to waste its precious power 'upgrading' to an OS that takes more juice from my Pro Tools session and gives me f**k all back? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomic1fireJun 30, 2010
Vista wasn't that bad when I actually used it, but 7 is XP good,
Vista did some cool things like built in gadgets, but it did nothing with the core apps that Microsoft actually decided to improve for 7,
stronger calc, wordpad, paint, and not to mention built in media center.
while someone would be better off using office, the improvements should be welcomed to any new 7 user.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
renegadeafkJun 29, 2010
Vista was fine, inf act win7 and vista are nearly the same under the hood. Anyone that says "vista sucks" and praises win7 is a f**king retard. They are nearly the same os.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kitsuaJun 29, 2010
Clearly anyone who thinks their own situation applies to everyone is a f**king retard.
connerwoodsJun 30, 2010
He's actually kind of right. Vista was pretty much an OS too ahead of its time. The current mainstream computers that were common during Vista's time couldn't handle Vista very well. It is also pretty similar to Win 7. However, I do agree generalizing people who like Win 7 over Vista as "f**king retards" is f**king retarded.
mweatherJun 30, 2010
It's an understandable mistake, though. People who don't know computers think the GUI is the OS, so when you change the GUI, and pretty much leave everything else alone, to them it looks like it's a whole new OS.
atomic1fireJun 30, 2010
actually 7 changed a bit from vista, but its mostly apps, IE, and simple themes, which I don't believe were in vista.
that and I'm sure some security related stuff as well, unless you count XP mode.
mweatherJun 30, 2010
That's what I said: The GUI changed.
catalystdmJun 29, 2010
I still see no reason to be interested in the future of the Windows platform.
pcpimpsterJun 30, 2010
Vista = Windows 6.0
Windows 7 = Windows 6.1
johoshuaJun 30, 2010
@pcpimpster correction: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion = Windows NT 6.1 / Build = 7600.win7_gdr.100226-1909
seltaeb4Jun 30, 2010
Vista was half of Microsoft's aborted Longhorn project.
Ballmer, being a sales guy, had to rush a product to market to keep the stock strong and rumors down and forced Microsoft to ship half of an unbaked pie, calling it "Vista."
After years of multiple monthly Critical Security Updates, attacks by worms, viruses, malware, software conflicts, hardware conflicts and Blue Screens of Death, it was the last straw. People had come to rely of Microsoft because of its utility and ubiquity, not because it was actually good software.
Into this breach Apple marched with computers and interactive peripherals that worked flawlessly together, as demonstrated humorously by the "I'm a Mac" campaign.
Microsoft spent hundreds of millions on damage control for Vista, and lost hundreds of billions in mental capital. They spent 2 years buying ad time that Vista wasn't so bad, before lauching a replacement update product, Windows.
And all to think, Ballmer was angry that Microsoft had not updated XP *before* they released Vista. Had the Longhorn Project not been killed and broken it two to hit Mr. Ballmer's desire for ever growing sales rather than a devotion to getting things right, the Vista debacle might never have occurred and Apple given the opportunity to present superior user experience as the only driving force.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
datdamonfooJun 30, 2010
Do you actually believe the s**t you say or do you just put the most ridiculous s**t down hoping that people will believe you?
svivianJun 30, 2010
Windows versions always alternate good and bad. Therefore, Windows 8 will suck.
seltaeb4Jun 30, 2010
I've yet to see a good one.
championchapJul 1, 2010
Vista was ok, it just felt like a glossy XP to me to be honest.
I had some problems with it when it had just come out, but a service pack later and all was well.
Windows 7 I think is really quite underwhelming considering the amount of praise it receives. There are plenty of things I would change.
Example: Why let me drag and drop icons I have in my taskbar if I can't rearrange the order of the previews of the multiple windows of that application? I find this to be incredibly frustrating.
Closed AccountJun 29, 2010
FTA: "The leaked documents suggest that Redmond still sees no value in creating a dedicated tablet-oriented operating system analogous to Apple's iOS"
So, they're just going to keep on trying to jam Windows into tablets, the way they've done for the last ten years? The Windows tablets nobody buys? Good plan, MS, good plan. Meanwhile, Apple (and eventually, Google) will continue to develop that market because they understand that a tablet doesn't have to have a full PC OS on it to be valuable, and indeed, that kind of OS is far from optimal for that form factor.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tim4902Jun 29, 2010
Just a hunch but I think Microsoft will be just fine.
gdj11Jun 29, 2010
Until Apple makes their tablets more functional, they're going to remain novelties. If anything, Microsoft is more forward thinking because they realize if tablets are to become a standard, they'll need to have the same functionality as desktops and laptops.
phillymjsJun 29, 2010
Flogging 'Desktop Windows stuffed into a tablet form factor' for 10 years is being "forward thinking"? Really? I'd be willing to bet more iPads have probably already been sold in a month and a half than dedicated (not that convertible, "look, I'm a laptop, too!" stuff) Windows tablets have in all that time.
As for making them "more functional," take a look at this: http://community.citrix.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=141690231
My own experience bears this out-- my company supports several decent sized medical practices, and the doctors are all chomping at the bit to get iPads and set them up as clients in existing Citrix environments, so they have a lightweight device with great battery life to use their line of business apps.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gdj11Jun 29, 2010
As long as the medical software company decides to port their software to iPad, then that's great. I design medical software and I know with the huge amount of fields and options required that's going to be very difficult. Now what if they need to print something off of it? Nope. At least not until Apple adds it in another version and even then you have to use a networked printer. What if using your finger on all the little options in your medical software is becoming difficult due to lack of precision? Currently you have to jailbreak your iPad just to get it working with a mouse.
I'm not trying to say iPads aren't useful. They have a bunch of uses for personal and business, but if you're saying the iPad as it stands will win out over a full OS on a thin, lightweight tablet in the long run, then I believe you're wrong.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
Yes it is more forward thinking to support multiple modalities rather than rely on just touch input for a device.
ljseinfeldJun 30, 2010
Yeah, because everybody knows that doing what you've always done is known as 'forward thinking'. Microsoft, historically, does not innovate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gdj11Jun 30, 2010
Almost every one of Apple's designs is taken from Braun. http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-apples-future
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
A lot of people that want to use the iPad don't want a full fledged laptop...
calvary3a1Jun 30, 2010
"A lot of people that want to use the iPad don't want a full fledged laptop..."
Then why would they pay twice as much as a full fledged laptop for the iPad?
seltaeb4Jun 30, 2010
"Until Apple makes their tablets more functional ..."
From this, I don't believe you've used one.
I've been using it since launch day. I've only grown more impressed with it. I can see so many incredible applications for this it's stupefying.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
honoredmuleJul 1, 2010
It must be stupefying...very effectively so.
gooddamonJun 29, 2010
As a dedicated Linux user who hasn't run Windows as a primary OS on any personally owned machines since 1999, I won't disregard Microsoft as a major competitor, regardless of market. They may make s**t software, but their business acumen is second to none. They have billions to sink into tablets until they get it right... or right enough for the average user.
Just look at Xbox 360. It was a loss leader for a long time, and I don't know if they've ever actually made money on that product line, even now. But they can afford to keep losing cash in consoles until they win the overall market.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 11, 2010
I have no idea why you're being buried, but.
Microsoft has something that not even the federal government has, a near infinite bank balance. Like you said, they can actually afford to throw enough of something that it eventually sticks to the wall.
mkriss5681Jun 29, 2010
"Still no tablet OS in the works"
As of right now Win 7 runs great on low budget notebooks with built in touch features. I don't think a new OS is necessary.
csdcoJun 29, 2010
Digg this guy up. Win7 runs very well on netbooks and touch devices.
seltaeb4Jun 30, 2010
Yes, it works wonderfully.
That's why HP just bought Palm.
gramathyJun 30, 2010
Running well and supporting features are very much not analogous to being a proper tablet OS.
gerz1219Jun 30, 2010
Microsoft absolutely does need to design a better Windows *interface* for touch-based devices, but it would be a horrible decision for them to create an entirely separate operating system to deal with that. They should be working on a separate launcher program for tablets analogous to Windows Media Center, which could be made to load on boot, but which would provide an iPad-like touch-friendly icon-driven interface. That way Microsoft wouldn't need to worry about maintaining a separate software ecosystem (all Windows applications would still work), and power users could drop back to a normal desktop if they needed to tweak something.
nonameworksJun 30, 2010
@Gerz
Don't forget that you could plug your slate into a monitor and keyboard to get the normal experience (especially if you are using a solid state drive).
mabsarkJun 30, 2010
@Gerz1219
What you're taking about is basically a new tablet specific shell. The shell in Windows is explorer.exe, but it can be changed quite easily. It certainly wouldn't be difficult for Microsoft to create a new shell for tablets, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than creating a new OS. Plenty of alternative shells for Windows exist so there might already be one that is designed for tablets.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
@gram so your saying it needs stuff like multi touch, handwriting recognition, adjustable size window elements (for different size fingers) and of course flick gestures??? these being the only things that would be different on a tablet.
so it needs the exact same feature set that windows 7 already has???
all of this is already there, idiot users just have to look instead of complain existing things aren't there, or moan they should be somehow different without providing any examples.
jasoncoxJun 30, 2010
Microsoft once had a dedicated TabletPC OS, and it was a flop, so they instead decided to integrate it's entire feature set into Windows. That copy of Windows Vista or Windows 7 you're running right now? It'll work great on a tablet, it supports touch, text input, multiple apps, hell, it even does copy/paste because, yeah, it's Windows.
javaroastJun 30, 2010
Unfortunately there are some obvious holes in your claims. HP's much touted tablet PC running Windows 7 was killed. The rumored reason it was killed was because HP wasn't satisfied with the way Windows 7 ran on it.
Dick Brass the VP in charge of the original Windows Tablet initiative has claimed that infighting between MS divisions hurt the usability of the Tablet edition. Hence why until Office 2007 you had to input ink in a separate window in all the Office applications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html
"Another example: When we were building the tablet PC in 2001, the vice president in charge of Office at the time decided he didn’t like the concept. The tablet required a stylus, and he much preferred keyboards to pens and thought our efforts doomed. To guarantee they were, he refused to modify the popular Office applications to work properly with the tablet. So if you wanted to enter a number into a spreadsheet or correct a word in an e-mail message, you had to write it in a special pop-up box, which then transferred the information to Office. Annoying, clumsy and slow. " Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jqp123Jun 30, 2010
@javaroast
"Unfortunately there are some obvious holes in your claims."
Rumors from HP and something that happened a decade ago --- "obviously" positive proof that Win8 won't run very well on a tablet.
javaroastJun 30, 2010
@JQP123 who the hell is talking about W8. I responded to a post about Windows 7 and only mentioned Windows 7 in my response. Not exactly unfounded or unsupported rumors from HP. The problem that was discussed a decade ago wasn't addressed until Office 2007.
Facts are that MS has flopped when it comes to the Tablet market and will need to do some real work to pull it together.
Closed AccountJul 13, 2010
@java
no its hardware manufactures that have flopped... win 7 has everything a tablet needs including multi touch and gestures... its the lack of hardware and more importantly AFFORDABLE hardware that has killed the non ipad tablet market... if they didnt charge the price of 2 laptops for one people would buy it... apple has the apple crowd that will pay any price for something with their logo, the PC market is open and thus doesn't have that sort of following, if there was a 400 dollar tablet that ran W7 with normal laptop speed and supported windows 7 feature list, you actually couldn't make them fast enough to supply the demand...
look how many ipads have sold and they are JUST an over-sized iphone with all its limitations.. and thats even at the $600 mark
philbertJun 30, 2010
Yes many of the "pad" like devices coming out, like Asus's Eee Pad, are running Windows 7.
shozikuJun 30, 2010
adults don't typically go for the tablet/pad stuff. its the apple folks that can't stop touching things.
mjoeJun 29, 2010
windows 8 should be made to work on both desktops and phones
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
Desktops and Phones will never ever be the same thing, no matter how much you guys with they were.
You may as well compare BBQ grills and Microwave ovens.
bjornskiJun 30, 2010
The day will come.
mabsarkJun 30, 2010
@bjornski
"Once 99% of data is web-centric, it won't really matter what device you access your data from."
Are you trying to say that writers will be using their phone to create novels? They require a keyboard and large screen so why would they use a phone? There are thousands of jobs that will always be more efficient when done on a computer than on a phone.
"So your phone COULD VERY WELL do the same things as your desktop."
No you couldn't because the technology in those desktops will improve a lot faster than the technology in the phones. So, by the time a phone can do what todays desktop can do, people will be making CGI movies on a single desktop in their bedroom.
sucka27Jun 30, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
copernicus1234Jun 29, 2010
Great, that makes two things im not interested in instead of just one. :)
fredfredricksonJun 29, 2010
"I just dont see Microsoft doing anything interesting with a app store. Its not in their interest to promote free software."
It isn't? I'd say that the massive amount of free software out there is one of the best reasons to own a Windows machine. Try finding half the free stuff for Mac or even Linux - it ain't gonna happen.
ljseinfeldJun 30, 2010
Yeah, except none of that half-non-existant freeware for Mac or Linux has ever tried to install a toolbar or other crap. More available stuff does not equal more quality.
I think the Mac / Linux state of good freeware is alive and well -- and definitely comparable to any Win freeware I can think of. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fredfredricksonJun 30, 2010
I didn't say that Mac and Linux don't have good freeware; I just said that Windows has more of it, and there's lots of good stuff out there. Don't discount it just because there's a lot of crap too - that holds true for all platforms anyway.
supercouilleJun 29, 2010
@ copernicus :
Microsoft has the majority of the computer market. They are following trends so people are not saying "f**k microsoft they dont have this and that". They want people to say "meh, microsoft too has it.. and i already own a microsoft product".
fredfredricksonJun 29, 2010
I remember seeing a poll about an in-Windows store / software repository popping up on Microsoft's website a while ago. Could be something great!
alyxvanceJun 29, 2010
they should just integrate steam as the game section of the app store
fredfredricksonJun 29, 2010
Funny coming from someone with your username (and me commenting on it with my avatar, hehe.
Still, I doubt MS would be comfortable doing something like this unless they just bought up Valve... which would be kind of funny after the whole E3 surprise [debacle].
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
Dear lord, MS buying Steam would make the baby jesus cry...
spire3660Jun 30, 2010
Gabe and company came from microsoft, i dont think they have any intention or need to sell to them.
fredfredricksonJun 30, 2010
If Microsoft offered to buy Valve, I doubt Gabe & Co. would object.
spire3660Jun 30, 2010
I disagree. Steam is in a fantastic position right now, and they really enjoy their users. Valve is not your average gaming company.
shadowman99Jun 29, 2010
Google recently removed two programs from their app store and forcibly uninstalled those apps from Android devices. Apple uses their apps store to maintain absolute control over what software you may install.
I can't at all see why Microsoft might be interested in such practices.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
homercles337Jun 29, 2010
"Google has remotely removed two free apps from several hundred Android phones because the apps misrepresented their purpose and thus violated Android developer policies, according to a company spokesman."
...and this...
"The apps were proof-of-concept programs designed to test the feasibility of distributing a program that could later be used to take control of the device in an attack, according to Jon Oberheide, the developer who wrote and distributed them."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20008922-245.html
Closed AccountJun 29, 2010
Damn those bastards for taking potentially dangerous software off my phone!
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
Didn't you guys know? Distributing trojans and worms is all part of being "Open"!
ljseinfeldJun 30, 2010
So if a person publishes an exploit for the iPhone or OS X, it's good... but if they expose a security flaw in Android, they're bad?
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
huh?
i think you aren't sure who you are arguing with here...
xinilJun 29, 2010
Let's just hope they don't follow Apple's example. Locking down Windows apps and only allowing Windows 8 users to install apps from their catalog would suck.
arunforceJun 30, 2010
They won't. That's self suicide, no one would ever upgrade, no one would use it for servers.
macintoshreaderJun 30, 2010
To Apple's defense, Mac OS X apps aren't locked down. You can download any app you want.
gramathyJun 30, 2010
Yeah, we even have package managers (that mostly point towards sourceforge) for open source stuff.
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
You mean MacPorts, the thing people pretend doesn't exist, because they neither posses the ability to comprehend what BSD Ports are, or the desire to accept that OS X isn't as evil as they would like to think?
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
Comparing laptops/desktops to phones will never make sense, so please just stop it.
Compare Windows to OS X, and WinMo to iOS, or just admit you aren't being truthful in your comments.
pcpimpsterJun 30, 2010
That will NEVER happen. Microsoft understands the importance of freedom for third party apps.
atroxodisseJun 29, 2010
It will be interesting to see how security and permissions will be handled in the app store. If the apps are inspected properly and given only limited access to the hardware and OS I can see this being a really secure platform that users can trust, instead of worrying if the software they just downloaded isn't installing spyware or malware.
maxxellJun 29, 2010
If Microsoft were to establish an App Store and only allow Microsoft-approved applications to be installed onto desktop computers, wouldn't they be running afoul of the antitrust problems that got them in trouble with Internet Explorer back in the day?
I mean, if they're taking a note from Apple, then they could reject internet browsers because they duplicate IE functionality. They could reject email programs because they duplicate Outlook. They could reject word processing programs because they duplicate Office. Etc.
If Microsoft did to PCs what Apple has done to cell phones, they'd have antitrust suits up the wazoo!
baggochipzJun 29, 2010
Makes one wonder where all the antitrust suits against Apple are. Yes, I know there are plenty, but none making it to a high enough court to matter. Not even Microsoft would be stupid enough to go full Apple on their Windows app store.
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
The anti-trust cases don't go anywhere, because thankfully, the Judges involved actually understand Business Law at a level beyond, "I read about this on Gizmodo a few days ago... and gosh darnit I'm angry rabble rabble!"
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
Yet there are indeed many browsers for the iPhone, multiple email clients for the iPhone, etc, so what exactly is your point?
The reason MS got into anti-trust trouble was not because they made IE the default browser, contrary to the urban myths you guys seem to propagate, but because they exerted RICO level extortion over PC OEM vendors; as in, demanding Dell put Windows on every PC they made and having to pay for each of those licenses, then threatening if they did not do as they were told, their entire Windows OEM license would be removed, thus killing any PC vendor in one fell swoop. MS also got into trouble by making IE such a core application in the OS, that the OS was unusable if IE were removed.
I really wish you guys were either old enough to actually remember how this all went down, or young enough to not suffer from selective memory loss.
maxxellJul 2, 2010
I dont get it. Do you not remember the days of Apple rejecting every app that duplicated functionality? Or how about when they rejected apps for no apparent reason? True, they've backed down somewhat and allowed some VOIP, but not all. Why did they reject google voice again? And it's still not in the app store last time I checked.
Also, do you really not think Apple has "RICO level extortion" power over the app developers? (You must use our programming tools) What about the advertisers? Have you read about the policies with the iAd? (Sorry google, you cant advertise on our devices)
Have you been following along with the jailbreak community? Apple actively seeks out ways to prevent people (even those who aren't even under AT&T contract and paid full, unsubsidized, price) from using their phones in ways they want to. My favorite example is the Flashlight app. App store app can only show a white screen. Jailbroken flashlight app can raise the brightness to make the light USEFUL, but since it uses a non-approved API, apple wont approve it in app store.
Also, quit being a dick. If you want to disagree with me, go for it. But what's with all the personal attacks?
ljseinfeldJun 30, 2010
Microsoft _did_ do that to PC's. Monopolistic practice is only monopolistic practice when you're a Monopoly.
zephyrprimeJun 30, 2010
So long as Windows isn't a closed platform, the app store would probably be ok by antitrust law. The only reason Apple's app store is ok by antitrust laws is because apple hasn't become a defacto monopoly of phones yet. Blackberry is still on top with number of units deployed. If apple were to become super dominant in the phone space, antitrust regulations WOULD apply.
mabsarkJun 30, 2010
"The only reason Apple's app store is ok by antitrust laws is because apple hasn't become a defacto monopoly of phones yet. Blackberry is still on top with number of units deployed."
Don't be silly. Nokia is the leader when it comes to phones, and no one else is even close to them. I don't know where you're getting your infor from, but it's complete bulls**t.
mabakerbrakerJun 29, 2010
Apple is NOT leading the way. No way! And Windows Phone Series 7 does NOT need copy and paste!
danbarkerJun 29, 2010
No phone needs copy and paste!
dig1xJun 30, 2010
Windows Phone 7 (the name of the platform, Windows Phone 7 Series is the name of the *multiple phones* that run WP7, but, nice troll attempt anyway);
A) Has copy and paste. Right now. You can use it.
B) MS has said it will be ready as a patch after launch.
You == needs new FUD.
jjobsJun 30, 2010
If A) has copy and paste. Right now why would they need to B) release it in a patch after launch?
mabsarkJun 30, 2010
That's quite funny considering that Microsoft PocketPC 2000 had copy/cut and paste.
darkshroudJul 1, 2010
Microsoft has been working on the menu options and refined them to the point that you have copy & paste like features. So you will rarely notice that official copy & paste isn't there yet.
Remember Windows Mobil has had copy & paste for years. MS rewrote Windows Phone 7 from the ground up so they did not just recycle the previous code.
iamrandomguyJun 29, 2010
I switched to iMac 2 months ago and wonder what took me so long.
quambJun 30, 2010
take your pc vs mac bs elsewhere thanks...
darkshroudJul 1, 2010
If you wanted to over pay on a PC you could have just gone to Best Buy.
latin69Jun 29, 2010
Microsoft’s game plan for Windows 8: Copy Apple - as usual
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microsofts_game_plan_for_windows_8_copy_apple_as_usual/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
renegadeafkJun 29, 2010
Troll article from biased site.
Fail.
phillymjsJun 29, 2010
How about this one, with the leaked documents, including a slide on "How Apple Does It":
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/06/28/windows.8.to.start.faster.use.sensors/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
You can dislike the sentiment all you like, but if you guys think MS hasn't copied what works for Apple, and Apple doesn't copy what works for MS, you're pretty ignorant of the actual Tech sector in general.
connerwoodsJun 30, 2010
You can't really trust any information about Microsoft that comes from anything with "mac" or "apple" in it. Or if it begins with a lower case "i."
tommyrJun 30, 2010
OSX and Linux for the win. Windows free for 14+ years and loving every second of it!
Suck it Ballmer!
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
To be fair, if you aren't proficient in all of the major OS's, you kinda aren't really much of a computer guy.
Just sayin'...
spire3660Jun 30, 2010
When Linux distros stop insisting that the most mundane tasks require me typing in a bunch of arcane commands, then i will be proficient at it. Every single time I've tried out linux, i come to a stumbling block and the answer is always 'type out this completely archaic line of code and pray.'
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
I'm not sure what you are talking about really, considering double clicking an RPM file installs that file and all of its dependencies for you, and GNOME and KDE are pretty simple to use at this point.
Think about this:
To use WIndows successfully, you must know how the Registry works, how DLLs work, all of the barely documented "net" commands in the command CLI, how and when to run anti-virus applications and how to update virus definitions files, how to roll back video and sound drivers if there is a problem, how to boor into Safe Mode, how to much the BIOS in such a way as to not totally destroy your data/RAM/CPU, how to use Registry cleaners, as well as many other things we all take for granted these days after years of struggling and cursing at our beige boxes.
It is very possible to make a *nix distro which barely requires any command line interaction whatsoever. Currently OS X does this the best, but it's still entirely possible for some Linux or other BSD distro to pick up the ball and truly make a free yet awesome OS for the average user.
Also, if you aren't learning something new every day on your computer, I still suggest you aren't much of a computer guy.
atomic1fireJun 30, 2010
Not really,
Unless you use windows in an advanced manner, (meaning it's your job or interest to know why something isn't working) you really don't need to know how to use registry.
I have never needed to use a registry cleaner, especially since I don't do anything that would futs up the registry.
(no toolbars, instant messengers, only install programs I know are safe, etc)
in fact, its never a good idea to touch the registry unless you have some idea of knowing what your doing.
Never had driver issues either, but then again, I don't touch them too often.
only used bios once, and that was to get XP mode working.
windows 7 is pretty hands off,
notifications if it wants you to do something, like backup,
but other then that, its pretty hands off,
That and I assume that most of the issues that plagued windows 98 and 95 are gone.
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
so it sounds like this is not a high powered gaming machine, which is one of the last arguments for Windows over anything else left.
if all you are doing is very simple stuff, and it sounds like you are, then any modern OS would work find for you
I switched my wife's laptop from WinXP to Linux Mint, then to OS X, and even though she has minimal computer experience, she was fully able to use those OSs with no problems at all, and Linux nor OS X cost the $200 MS wants for Win7.
salinungathaJun 30, 2010
Windows being successful is important for everyone. Why? A strong Windows creates the largest economic all round economic benefits for all.
Apple - Apple gets rich, nobody else does.
Windows - Microsoft gets rich, so do a lot of others.
Linux - A few niche players do well.
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
You really think Apple developers don't make money? What weirdo world do you live in?
Belkin alone has probably made tens of millions of dollars on Apple accessories. What about the devs who have popular apps in the App Store? Do you refuse to believe that these normal people who just happen to know how to code for the iPhone haven't made money hand over fist?
If anything, developing for the iPhone is _at least_ as profitable as developing for Windows, considering an "app store" makes all your marketing and accounting that much easier.
crazedchemistJun 30, 2010
look at me, i can pull s**t out of nowhere too!
If anything, developing for the iphone is far less profitable than developing for windows, considering the user base is much larger on windows.
quambJun 30, 2010
What?
If Microsoft died a miserable death over the next few years, the economy will do just fine. And if anything, Google will be all over the missing holes, not Apple or Linux...
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
Google won't be able to magically make 95% of the computer using population suddenly understand the virtues of "thin clients" and "cloud computing", no matter how awesome those things will be in the future.
Google's only chance at taking over the desktop/laptop market is through very slow adoption, baby steps, which is exactly what they have been doing for a decade now. Gmail. Gtalk. Google Docs. Chrome.
There is no way in hell Google could shrink wrap an entire desktop OS that follows their vision and put it on shelves tomorrow, since most users would be incredibly uncomfortable with such a huge leap forward in personal computing.
Then there is the fact that you have to convince all these hundreds of millions of users to just "trust" Google with all your data on the cloud, hope Google never gets hacked, hope that Google is being honest about how they user your personal data, hope that the governments of the world allow such a huge shift policy, etc.
If MS died tonight, Google might fill in a lot of cracks with their online apps, but Apple and to less of an extent Ubuntu would take over most of MS's desktop/laptop market.
quambJun 30, 2010
True. Good points.
hongkongjapieJun 30, 2010
There's no fee to develop Mac OS X applications, unlike Visual Studio, XCode is totally free without crippling. Apple even maintains a free software directory where developers can list the applications. iPhone is more closed however, but so will be Microsoft new mobile platform.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
vfredJul 1, 2010
While it is true Visual Studio does cost something, there are plenty of free and commercial alternatives to develop applications on the Windows Platform.
hongkongjapieJul 2, 2010
@vfred, yes, I'm saying the 'evil' Apple gives you a free and complete tool. I'm not saying Apple is better than MS, I'm just trying to show Apple and MS aren't that different in lots of aspects. The "Apple get rich nobody else does" is just bull, but if people want to believe it because hating Apple is the thing these days, fine.
drleephdJun 30, 2010
Ubuntu has an app store too, except that everything is free.
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
Not really a store then, as much as a "repository", which have been around for decades. Remember Tucows?
A "store" implies that the company behind the main product have verified the apps inside to be compatible, stable, and secure, something Windows has desperately needed for a very long time.
dig1xJun 30, 2010
> Ubuntu has an app store too, except that everything is free.
And sucks.
drleephdJun 30, 2010
f**k you guys, 'Sudo apt-get' still counts!.\
4ndr01dJun 30, 2010
woO
now I dont have to download weatherbug winamp and realplayer from CNET anymore
thanks M$
blackjackjesterJun 30, 2010
I pray that the entire app distribution will be handled via bittorrent. It would be the best way to distribute apps :).
kentdiegoJun 30, 2010
The have always had an app store, Windows Marketplace. It was just crap.
enantiodromiaJun 30, 2010
Good for MS.
I have always wished there was an "official" Windows app store, with actual dependable reviews, where the apps have been blessed by MS as being secure and stable, with a nice Purchase history to look back at over time, with a nice online License Key database so I don't have to hunt around that stuff every time I rebuild my machines, etc.
What would be really nice is if it had something like AppShelf (http://www.kedisoft.com/appshelf/) to manage license keys and meta data.
nonameworksJun 30, 2010
Yes but it seems to me that this should be a free download for Windows 7. They could turn a good profit off of it if people use it. On the other hand one of the biggest mistakes Microsoft have made was giving away Windows XP SP2 for free. If they called that one by another name they may not be criticized so much for taking so long to release Vista.
bobturboceoJun 30, 2010
I think they should just completely abandon the whole taskbar/startmenu thing and go with a dock. Also, the Ribbon UI they are rolling out everywhere is not really any better than the previous solution. They need to fix that somehow.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
itwasonlyajokeJun 30, 2010
Basically, they need to make OS X?
bobturboceoJun 30, 2010
Yeah pretty much.
spiralspiritJun 30, 2010
I like the taskbar and I like the ribbons.
ifeiceJun 30, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
atomic1fireJun 30, 2010
actually windows 7 start bar does the same thing as dock, except its more windows and less mac.
for one, I actually use the quick launch buttons now, and the right click context menus that show the most used features are kind of useful.
Keep the start bar as it is, unless you can improve on it. (I cant think of any way to improve it)
copying dock is unoriginal, especially since start-bar has stayed mostly the same for years.
it's done its job and it has done it well, so why copy apple,
I use start bar for start menu, calender, time, and program access, and the programs that run in the background that use to plague the right side of the screen, but now are nicely hidden out of the way unless you click show icon.
Where would I see the time if it was just a lousy dock, Clock widget? no thanks
skyscapeJun 30, 2010
Are you serious? The Dock is the most thing I hate about Apple. Windows start menu and taskbar is way better, especially when it comes to managing lots of open apps. With apple, have the time is spent searching for that open window hidden beneath the layers expose, and spaces, even with all the fancy screen corner tricks, it still baffles me.
skinturtleJun 30, 2010
Windows Store? Why not call it Window Shopping
pixelguruJul 6, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
dougm68Jul 13, 2010
yeah..that's way to smart and easy for Microsoft. They should really read their digg entries for ideas.
itwasonlyajokeJun 30, 2010
Windows 8? Already?!!!!
philbertJun 30, 2010
This doesn't mean they're releasing it any time soon, they're just making plans for the next version like any good company would.
pixelguruJul 6, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
philbertJul 6, 2010
Uh, Longhorn is Vista, I'm using it right now.
censormagnetJun 30, 2010
its about time they clued into this app store type idea for windows.
even their xbox already has it
leftyrightyJun 30, 2010
jeez... better start learning Windows 7 before that is outdated...
decoy9697Jun 30, 2010
That is brilliant. I quite like how they've gone for a glass look with the OS too.
garagethrashJun 30, 2010
Your sarcasm was not lost on me.
TheDigitalNinjaJun 30, 2010
This is something I really hoped we would see in Window 7. Not to compete with the iTunes app store, but to compete with synaptic and yast.
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
5 Years from now: "Linux TOTALLY ripped off having central repositories from Windows!"
inactiveuserJun 30, 2010
OMG! KDE looks like aero glass!
danielphermousJun 30, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mgill3Jun 30, 2010
Looks like Microsoft has Apple beat on this one... why didn't Apple think of this one first?
Then again, I'm not particularly in favor of all of my content being digital... if I own something, I'd prefer a physical product anyway.
danielphermousJun 30, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mgill3Jun 30, 2010
Very true. Who knows what's in the works.
hongkongjapieJun 30, 2010
It's probably not that Apple hasn't thought about it, it's probably more about priorities. Apple is much smaller than MS so it has to concentrate it's R&D on a few projects. At the moment iOS is the main priority it seems. Would love to see more focus on Mac OS X again.
mweatherJun 30, 2010
Apple has a larger market cap than Microsoft, and billions in cash. I think they can handle the R&D costs of an app store.
hongkongjapieJul 1, 2010
@MWeather: Cash isn't really an issue for Apple. Market Cap is some virtual number that investors value some company and doesn't automatically increase your R&D team. Just doubling the number of developers is recipe for disaster so Apple's development team won't grow overnight. They have a commander that's very pushing and tight on deadlines so no I don't think Apple can do many side projects that aren't their main focus, Apple doesn't want to release something until it's close to perfect in their opinion (although we sometimes have different ideas about what's perfect and what's not :-).
MS seems to have a different strategy, release early, see what market likes/dislikes and improve in successive releases. It seems like every first version of an MS product is absolute crap and after a few releases it starts to get usabel (Windows, Windows CE, Office, Direct X to name a few).
a11yndJun 30, 2010
Microsoft adding an app store? Wow. I'm for them having one, but remember the s**t storm caused just because they had Internet Explorer pre-installed? I can already hear Apple fanboys and the EU calling for an anti-trust case.
atomic1fireJun 30, 2010
Microsoft has a lot of stuff preinstalled,
Europeans are the only people who complained,
but if Microsoft is fair about who is able to use it, and what apps are allowed (not only allowing windows media player, but allowing someone to install itunes, if they wanted) it would probably be fine.
a11yndJun 30, 2010
you can already install iTunes if you want.
generalalcazarJun 30, 2010
I think this should be titled: "Microsoft Follows: an App Store for Windows, IE9 beta in August"
esc27Jun 30, 2010
Two things I want from Windows 8: an app store/3rd party accessible repository for updates and for it to run as a VM on a client hypervisor with most/all apps running in virtualized sandboxes.
One out of two is promising.
nneilJun 30, 2010
Microsoft needs to drop IE, declare defeat, and put either Firefox or Google Chrome on its OS instead. Microsoft seems to me like it is trying its best to keep its head above water, but it is looking like Google if they can create an OS could destroy Microsoft. An app store (imitating Apple) is a desperate attempt of Microsoft to strengthen its position in the tech world, which is slowly being shrunk. Microsoft should merge with Google, but it will never happen. My prediction is that in the next five years Microsoft will be gone.
Nathan Neil
http://nathanneil.comComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
valeriaOberigJun 30, 2010
Maybe it's worth waiting couple months-half a year to see the Windows 9:))) Just for those who worry about fast switch from Windows 7 to 8 version:)
Closed AccountJun 30, 2010
I fail to see the point in a Windows App Store.
danielphermousJul 1, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
mweatherJun 30, 2010
Looks like Microsoft is finally getting it's wish: if you want your code to run on Windows, you pay a fee to have it signed by Microsoft.
But at least we have a central way to update everything.
opiticaJun 30, 2010
Fantastic, a bunch of free closed-source porn apps for the next big botnet
Closed AccountJul 1, 2010
package manager: ur doin in wrong
wilhoitmJul 1, 2010
I can't wait to get my new Fart App into the Windows 8 App store!
pilgrim3970Jul 1, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
maxxellJul 7, 2010
@homercles337
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=unnecessary+windows+features
Google has 855,000 pages with information on things that MS installs with windows that various people have decided you dont need. (okay, that's a bit of overstatement, but do the search yourself and see)
Plus, your criteria for a response belies the very point. There's a lot that MS installs with Windows that people DONT know about, and thus never use (and a good deal that most users wouldn't use even if they knew about it). That counts as 'fat' to me. And if it's *sometimes* used by *advanced* users under specific circumstances, then let those *advanced* users go to the app store and get that installed.
@lazy6pyro
I'm like that too. I am repeatedly asked by people why their great computer is running so slowly. Quick check of task manager reveals DOZENS of processes for stuff they dont use/want.
In summary, it seems people who are handy with computers (like lazy6pyro seems) would benefit from being able to pick and choose which features they want. People who are happy filing their hard drive with gobs of data for stuff they might use once or twice are better off letting MS install everything all at once.
dougm68Jul 13, 2010
Don't get too excited.
Windows stores (app stores) (game stores) have notoriously sucked ass in the past.
Why now would they get it right??
Have they hired a common user from the outside to come in and point out obvious things to MS
so they don't clutter it up or make it so confusing that finding a book is a 'needle ina haystack' experience?
No. They haven't done this. They have the same crew of pasty faced, thick glasses wearing, pencil neck teams trying to jam all of their ideas into this venture so they don't look bad or make their division seem worthless in team MS.
We will see the ZUNE store on STERIODS.
It'll be like itunes + AOL + MySpace wrapped into one jumbled mess that slows your new shiny windows8 to a crawl which will eventually cause SP1 to give you the option of turning iWindowsStore OFF.
Prove me wrong MS.
~sigh...
dougm68Jul 13, 2010
Finally. Maybe someone will make apps for Zune. I've had my ZuneHD for a year now. I think I've seen 5 new apps in a YEAR !
MS drops the ball....again..again...again...again...
generalobviousJul 13, 2010
We don't need an app store for f**king windows, ugh.
Now we're just going to be nickel and dimed to death for trivial apps that anyone can make in their sleep.
MikaelFOct 8, 2011
This is Microsoft's best OS... Hope they can handle all their requests in this system.