backtop


Print 150 comment(s) - last by saishowaguu.. on May 13 at 9:59 PM

Extent of ban is unclear, but Google and Mozilla are outraged, say Microsoft is promoting a monopoly

NOTE: 
In early version suggested that Metro UI third-party browsers are banned.  Mozilla has indicated that Microsoft is actually banning desktop mode third-party browsers ("classic" mode browsers).  While not banned in Metro UI, Mozilla says Microsoft is still trying to cripple third party browsers via API denial.  Microsoft counters saying it gives them some extra API privileges, but has not promised to give Mozilla or Google access to all the APIs that Internet Explorer has in Metro UI.


Windows 8 RT "isn't Windows anymore."

I. The Ban

That's allegedly part of what Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) attorney David Heiner told Mozilla general counsel Harvey Anderson, during his attempt to explain why Microsoft was banning third-party browsers from the Metro user interface (UI) for Windows 8 RT -- the version of the upcoming OS which will run on ARM architecture chips, targeting tablets and low-power laptops.

Microsoft claims it is only looking out for number one -- its customers.  It is quoted by Mr. Anderson as claiming that third-party browser makers like Mozilla and Google Inc. (GOOG) would be incapable of dealing with the power and security needs of the mobile atmosphere, hence they will be relegated to the low-use traditional "Classic" UI porton of Windows 8 RT.  Hence, according to the clearest account (from the Mozilla Foundation), Microsoft is denying third party browsers installation rights on the "Classic" (desktop) mode.  At the same time it is denying them access to crucial APIs in Metro UI mode, essentially leaving any would-be third party Metro UI browsers crippled.

Windows 8
Microsoft appears to be on the verge of banning third-party browsers from its Metro UI, at least for the ARM OS version for tablets and laptops. [Image Source: Hardware Canucks]

The stance is not entirely unique to Microsoft.  It is rather similar to Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) policy.  While Apple has allowed some third-party browsers for its iPad tablet, it will only accept browsers that are essentially reskins built atop its base Webkit code, which it co-develops with Google.  The sole exception to date has been Opera Mini from Norwegian browser maker Opera Software ASA (OSE:OPERA) (Firefox has not yet been permitted on the iPhone/iPad, nor has Chrome).  

Of course Microsoft stand is also rather unique in that it also will likely affect some of the Windows 8 laptop population.  Even Apple hasn't been bold enough to ban third-party browsers on its laptops, not yet at least.

There may be some truth in Microsoft's argument, as it's working the closest with hardware developers and has the best knowledge of its low level firmware and is hence best positioned to promote power efficiency or security.  But it's also hard to avoid the perception that Microsoft's decision to ban third-party browsers from what may be one of its most attractive Windows 8 segments is awful convenient given Internet Explorer's market share, which has plunged to its lowest level in a decade.

II. Mozilla and Google Cry Foul

Mozilla wrote a stern blog rebuffing the mandate, commenting:

We encourage Microsoft to remain firm on its user choice principles. Excluding 3rd party browsers contradicts Microsoft’s own published Principles that users and developers have relied upon for years. These principles represented a Microsoft market approach that was both notable and went above and beyond their DOJ antitrust settlement obligations.

The not-so-subtle allusion to the U.S. government's antitrust action against Microsoft is seconded by comments by Mr. Anderson in a CNET interview.  He suggests that legal action may be a necessary panacea to the problem.  He remarks, "Sometimes they need some pressure... If it turns out to be legal pressure, that could be the thing."

Adding to the chaos is a new statement from Google commenting:

We share the concerns Mozilla has raised regarding the Windows 8 environment restricting user choice and innovation. We've always welcomed innovation in the browser space across all platforms and strongly believe that having great competitors makes us all work harder. In the end, consumers and developers benefit the most from robust competition.

This statement adds a new layer of uncertainty and doubt, because it makes it sound like Microsoft may be applying the ban not only to Windows 8 RT, but perhaps to all Windows 8 distributions.

Google Chrome Logo
Google and Mozilla, both of whom were reportedly developing Metro UI browser apps are outraged at the tenative ban on third party browser software. [Image Source: Google]

As The Verge puts it:

Its [sic] not clear if Google's mention of "Windows 8" is simply poorly worded or if it has broader issues with the Metro environment.

Regardless, the statements from the two biggest third-party browser makers on the Widnows platform seemingly confirms beyond a doubt that Microsoft is indeed contemplating some kind of browser ban/crippling (via API/rights denial), even if it unclear exactly how far that ban will extend.  

And that's a rather astounding move.  Yes, Microsoft may be right -- it knows the low level hardware better than anyone.  But the same could be said of traditional Windows and Microsoft has hardly showed itself capable of providing the most power efficient or fully functional browser.

III. Antitrust Suicide: What is Microsoft Thinking??

The not-so-subtle elephant in the room is that Microsoft is cracking open wide a massive can of antitrust worms.  The European Union already fined over $2B USD in total for simply not allowing users to chose a separate default browser at install time with Windows Vista/Windows 7.  Microsoft was forced to not only pony up cash, but also release a special version of Windows 7 to placate EU antitrust enforcers.

Compared to Microsoft's much more subtle ploy of simply making its browser the only pre-installed browser and the stock default browser, a complete (permanent) ban on third-party options in part of Windows 8 and alleged crippling in the other part seems a positively suicidal move from an antitrust perspective when we're considering a laptop operating system -- a market that Microsoft owns in excess of 85 percent of.

Of course Microsoft, would surely defend its approach, but EU regulators have not seemed particularly fond of siding with Microsoft in past browser spats.

Seppuku wide
The browser ban seems suicidal from an anti-trust perspective. [Image Source: Euro-Synergies]

Again, it's hard to know what Microsoft is thinking here as the company has refused to comment on the statements and we only have Google and Mozilla's information to rely on.  It's possible that Microsoft is only considering the ban for non-EU distributions of Windows 8 (such as the U.S. version).  But even in the more lax antitrust atmosphere of the United States, it's hard to imagine that antitrust regulators would buy such a decision, particularly given the clout that Mozilla and Google command in the federal government.

Remember, the 1999 case revolved around accusations that Microsoft boosted its Office suite by denying third parties API access.  Granted the situation is a bit different in that this may only apply to one architecture, but there's still cause for concern and caution, even in the U.S.

This is a very surprising development and should be a very interesting issue to watch in coming weeks.  I expect Microsoft to fully recant on its decision to ban third-party browsers, but the key question is whether it is wise enough to make that move on its own free will or whether it is foolhardy enough to persist in the policy until legal challenges land and it is struck with more antitrust punishments.

Sources: Mozilla, CNET [Google], [Mozilla], The Verge



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 1:00:14 PM , Rating: 4
The whining from Google and Mozilla on this supposed issue is laughable and depressing, at the same time. First of all, Windows RT is not Windows 8 per se. Both Chrome and Firefox will work just fine on Windows 8. The difference is on Windows RT, apps will be metro apps, and only IE is given special privileges. But Windows RT is just like the iPad, which also offers no ability to change the default browser (Safari). So why aren't Google and Mozilla complaining about the iPad? And why is it okay for Google to completely bar ONLY Windows Phone from accessing its APIs on Youtube, while allowing iOS and Android special privileges? This article seems to think that Microsoft is in the wrong, when in actuality, it is Google and Mozilla in the wrong for targeting Microsoft for using the same practices that Apple and Google do for their mobile operating systems.




RE: Complete BS.
By theplaidfad on 5/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 1:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I do want you to elaborate. If it is wrong, then why are these two companies not focused on Apple? And is it inherently wrong to not allow non-metro third-party apps on a metro tablet?


RE: Complete BS.
By nafhan on 5/10/2012 1:25:05 PM , Rating: 5
OK:
1) "why are these two companies not focused on Apple?"
Basically, the complaining about Apple's restrictive policies has been going on for years: it's old news. MS is taking what was expected to be a more open platform and (unnecessarily?) restricting it. Plus, Mozilla has ALREADY gone to significant trouble adapting Firefox to the Metro UI based on this expectation (same probably applies to Google).

2) "is it inherently wrong to not allow non-metro third-party apps on a metro tablet?"
MS can do whatever they want (within the confines of the law) with their products. So, it's not "wrong". It is however, I'll say, D-bagish to introduce that type of restriction at this point.


RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 1:32:43 PM , Rating: 3
1. You say it's old news, but I've never seen Google or Mozilla formally complain that their browsers were not allowed on Apple's format. And if they have stopped complaining, why renew the SAME complaint with a new company?

But let's say they HAVE been complaining for sometime about Apple. If Apple has shown that you can simply ignore Google and Mozilla and in time they will stop, then what is the impetus for Microsoft to even care about this?

And if Mozilla has ALREADY gone to significant trouble adapting Firefox to Metro, then what is the problem? No one is stopping them from making a Metro Firefox. This complaint is about making a non-metro Firefox for Windows RT, which is all Metro, aside from a handful of Microsoft apps.

2. I'm not sure if it is D-baggish or not, but if it isn't wrong, then too bad. Google is a D-bag for not allowing Youtube's APIs. But it's not wrong in that it's not illegal. You said it was wrong, and now you're saying it isn't, so which is it? And what is "this point"? Windows RT has never been available before, so what exactly would have been the right point to introduce this type of restriction? Again, Windows 8 has none of these restrictions, this is only Windows RT.


RE: Complete BS.
By nafhan on 5/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 4:19:03 PM , Rating: 3
1. First of all, Google Voice was rejected, but was summarily accepted. Second, Google does the same thing on Windows Phone, if not in a more evil way. Google not only blocks Windows Phone (and ONLY Windows Phone) from accessing its APIs, but it is actively going after 3rd party solutions on the Windows Marketplace.

http://wmpoweruser.com/google-cracking-down-on-mar...

And Mozilla saying they weren't even going to try is much different than ACTIVELY complaining like they are doing now. Why are they not just accepting it and pouting in a corner like they did last time? What's the difference?

2. Ok, I apologize, I mixed you up with the other poster (since I asked him to elaborate but you replied instead).
The Youtube API was brought up by me in the OP. It wasn't random, it was just showing that d-baggish moves are made by Google, and we all seem to accept it, which is hypocritical.


RE: Complete BS.
By sprockkets on 5/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 6:17:18 PM , Rating: 3
MS isn't suing anyone that I know of for that at least. The Android OEMs paid out when confronted by Microsoft. Because Microsoft owns patents and are protecting their property. Perhaps if Google weren't such d-bags and allowed the same access to their sites to Microsoft that it allows EVERYONE ELSE, MS would be a little more inclined to work with Google on these issues.


RE: Complete BS.
By sprockkets on 5/11/2012 12:46:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
MS isn't suing anyone that I know of for that at least.


What, Barnes and Noble over the android powered nook and Motorola's android phones don't ring a bell? Just about every claim made to the FTC fell flat for MS against MOTO.

quote:
Because Microsoft owns patents and are protecting their property.


You mean vague software patents? And thankfully the FAT32 long filename patent was ruled invalid due to prior art.

quote:
Perhaps if Google weren't such d-bags and allowed the same access to their sites to Microsoft that it allows EVERYONE ELSE, MS would be a little more inclined to work with Google on these issues.


Funny how third party apps on wp7 have no issues working with the meta data that MS claims is being blocked to them.

I haven't seen any updates on that story from 3/31/11 so we'll just have to see.

Btw, when did you see Google complain about Bing being the default search engine on an Android phone? Yeah, remember that?


RE: Complete BS.
By nafhan on 5/11/2012 10:01:57 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that the situations aren't exactly the same. Since it's more of an interesting aside rather than info relevant to the discussion, let's ignore it...

More relevant: whether or not some other software company has done something at some point has no bearing on whether or not what MS is doing right now is a good thing for people creating alternate web browsers for Windows 8/RT. It's pretty clearly not a good thing (for them at least), they have reason to complain, and the fact they have done things that are similarly frustrating in the past doesn't make those complaints any less valid. That's all.

There's no rule that says complaints have to be an all or nothing thing that can only be made by those that have done no wrong...


RE: Complete BS.
By tamalero on 5/11/12, Rating: 0
RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/11/2012 12:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
1. Then that would be the wrong answer. Microsoft has barely ANY of the tablet market. The iPad is around 80%. This is not Windows 8, this is Windows RT. Windows RT has 0% marketshare. There is no monopoly issue here.

2. Google has not done the same when IOS devices are involved. IOS does not allow for Chrome to be installed, but Google has remained completely silent about it. Why?

For Youtube, your suppositions make no sense. Why does Google allow all other mobile devices to access their APIs but Windows Phone? How is Windows Phone any different?


RE: Complete BS.
By AssBall on 5/10/2012 1:29:49 PM , Rating: 2
Can you run IE or Opera on a Chromebook? ...Yes, if you really like having it all but neutered and getting 3rd and 4rth party programs installed and enjoy dicking with things that should be so much simpler.

Just saying there is a lot of double standard to consider here, it is not like the old IE/Netscape monopoly fight, there is way more and different kinds of devices and pantents involved here.


RE: Complete BS.
By nafhan on 5/10/2012 2:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
Two problems with your line of thought here:

1) My issue is more with MS adding this restriction this late in the game. If this was clear from the start, it would probably be less of an issue.

2) Why the HELL would anyone buy a Chromebook :)

I think Windows 8 tablets look interesting so far... just not the ARM based ones. I'll be really interested to see whether they run full Windows 8 or "Windows RT" on the SoC x86 CPU's (i.e. Medfield/Clovertrail). That'll decide whether or not I'm interested in buying one.


RE: Complete BS.
By TakinYourPoints on 5/10/2012 3:03:43 PM , Rating: 4
Microsoft said last year that the only way to load Metro apps (meaning all apps for ARM devices) would be via the Windows Store, and that they wouldn't be allowing desktop applications for ARM on there. This isn't a new restriction.


RE: Complete BS.
By WalksTheWalk on 5/11/2012 9:47:56 AM , Rating: 3
I think the problem is that Microsoft is labeling both the x86 and ARM versions of the two products as Windows 8 which causes confusion.

People are going to see the ARM version of Windows 8, see that they cannot load their favorite browser, office application or whatever and start calling for Microsoft anti-trust even though Apple had done something similar with iOS. The difference from Apple's perspective is that OS X and iOS are clearly braded as two different things. Microsoft made the mistake of branding both as the same product AND making them look and basically operate the same.


RE: Complete BS.
By TakinYourPoints on 5/11/2012 7:10:30 PM , Rating: 2
While I disagree that Microsoft should get into legal trouble over this (it won't stop litigation though), I do agree that they should have more discreetly branded and separated Windows for ARM and x86 devices. Combining the two so completely is going to cause many practical issues.


RE: Complete BS.
By sprockkets on 5/11/2012 12:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you run IE or Opera on a Chromebook? ...Yes, if you really like having it all but neutered and getting 3rd and 4rth party programs installed and enjoy dicking with things that should be so much simpler.


IE could run on linux natively if MS wanted to, not because they are stopping them from doing so.But it depends on so many integrated Windows technologies that perhaps without a complete rewrite it is impossible.

Heck, opera, Dolphin, Maxathon, Firefox all can run without fuss on Android, phone or tablet(why you bring up Chromebook is beyond me)


RE: Complete BS.
By NellyFromMA on 5/10/2012 8:37:47 PM , Rating: 3
I mean, if you find it too restrictive, don't buy it? Win RT isn't even out, it has 0% market share. Hardly a monopoly. Just don't use it and let the consumers decide on this one?


RE: Complete BS.
By Tony Swash on 5/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Complete BS.
By JediJeb on 5/10/2012 5:45:44 PM , Rating: 1
I have to agree.

Wait,, did I actually say that :O


RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:00:44 PM , Rating: 3
It's a weak point really.
First, it's an exaggeration to say that Microsoft has had "a long history of using it's (sic.) browser to undermine open HTML web standards in order to promote it's proprietary solutions and to shut out competitors on the web." But even if this were true, the restrictions here only exist in a subset of Windows, Windows RT, and no one is shutting out Google or Mozilla from making their browser, only the desktop version of their browser. Microsoft clearly stated that only Metro apps would be allowed on Window RT devices, but Google and Mozilla want special privileges.
As far as not basing things off actions from 20 years ago, Microsoft has been far more accepting of HTML5 open standards than most, and Google appears to believe that HTML5 is the future. So obviously things are not as they once were.

Mozilla and Google are free to release their browser on any Windows 8 computer/tablet.


RE: Complete BS.
By theplaidfad on 5/10/2012 3:26:21 PM , Rating: 1
Either my point went right over your head, or I just wasn't clear enough. No need to bicker and argue about who killed who.

I'll pose this question instead... wouldn't it be great if none of these companies restricted each others software/hardware? I doubt we'll ever see the day.


RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:08:29 PM , Rating: 3
I think you simply didn't have a point. When I asked for more, you came up with nothing.

I agree, there shouldn't be these restrictions, but if there are, why is it fair for some and not for others?


RE: Complete BS.
By FITCamaro on 5/10/2012 1:32:30 PM , Rating: 3
I don't view this as a wrong either way. It is Microsoft's product. They should be allowed to allow and restrict anything they see fit. Should you be able to sue Chevy because you can't get a Ford powerplant in a Corvette?

What they do with their product is their business and they do it at their own gain and/or peril. If people want a different browser enough, they won't use Windows 8 RT. I choose not to use Apple's OS for a reason. Should I be able to force Apple to support DirectX? No because a) there's competition from OpenGL and b) I don't have the right to.


RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 2:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Except they aren't disallowing the browsers, just the desktop versions. Google and Mozilla can go all out on their metro browsers...the ones that will most likely be the most used on ARM based devices (and ARM laptops are not really a substantial subset of Microsoft's "vehicles" at this point).


RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Complete BS.
By aGreenAgent on 5/10/2012 3:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I believe it is you that have this backwards. The issue is that you can't make a program for the desktop.


RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 4:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
As stated by aGreenAgent, you have this backwards. This perhaps may make you revisit your argument in a new light, and see how you're not exactly understanding the issue at hand.


RE: Complete BS.
By WalksTheWalk on 5/11/2012 9:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yes Jason has it reversed there.

Windows 8 = Third party desktop and Metro apps
WinRT = Third party Metro apps only

The problem is that Microsoft is causing much confusion in the market because they are touting both Windows 8 (x86) and WinRT (ARM) as Windows 8. If experience tech people are confused, imagine what the general public will think. In the minds of consumers they are both Windows 8, but WinRT is much more restrictive. In WinRT, only MS will have the ability to produce non-Metro desktop applications. In fact, the only applications installable in the WinRT tablets will be those available through the MS app store.

Inevitably people will purchase a Windows 8 ARM tablet and, seeing that it has a desktop, be upset that they cannot install their favorite Windows apps on it.


RE: Complete BS.
By Labotomizer on 5/10/2012 2:35:55 PM , Rating: 4
[i]Microsoft will restrict third-party browsers like Firefox and Chrome to the Metro sandbox in Windows 8 for ARM devices, while treating Internet Explorer 10 as an “intrinsic feature” of Windows. Mozilla and its primary backer, Google, say that’s not fair. - Ed Bott[/i]

Nothing about this says that they aren't allowed to release browsers. They are simply being treated like any other app in Metro. IE10 be a core feature however.

Perhaps you should have done a little more digging before blindly following, and believing, Google and Mozilla's slant.


RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: Complete BS.
By althaz on 5/12/2012 8:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
Jason, you are an idiot. Microsoft has stated MANY TIMES that there will be ZERO desktop apps available from third parties and this includes browsers.

Third party browsers are absolutely possible (and already in development by at least Mozilla) but must be released on the Windows Marketplace, hence they must be Metro.

You should remove this article immediately because it's full of shit.

Feel free to post a new one saying that it's bullcrap that MS isn't allowing any other desktop browsers if you want (although I personally don't care, at least this would be factually accurate).


RE: Complete BS.
By tastyratz on 5/10/2012 2:31:15 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. We are not talking about a market where consumer choice drives a very diverse selection. I would think of it better compared to a market where you have GM (microsoft) and daewoo (apple). GM announces they are going to only put a 4cyl option in the corvette, it's only remaining sports car. They are also going to shut down any manufacturer or facility which attempts to make an aftermarket engine swap (google, mozilla).
It's their right to do so, but you don't even have the option to go out and buy a competing product, or do what you want to your own. If you want a sports car it's 4cyl vette or nothing.


RE: Complete BS.
By NellyFromMA on 5/10/2012 8:44:37 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft is vvying for third place in the mobile market. It's hardly in a position to call it a monopoly. Does Microsoft truly have to be unfairly disadvantaged in the mobile market too where currently it arguably struggles to survive?

Or... should Google be allowed to develop a browser for the Xbox 360 because Microsoft has 1st place position in the console market? Where do we draw the line here?

That's my opinion anyways.


RE: Complete BS.
By Jaybus on 5/10/2012 3:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
No. The engine is an integral part of the car. A browser is not an integral part of the OS. It's just another user mode app. It would be more like Ford banning the use of 3rd party audio speakers.


RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/2012 3:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No. The engine is an integral part of the car. A browser is not an integral part of the OS. It's just another user mode app. It would be more like Ford banning the use of 3rd party audio speakers.
Huh? The browser isn't an "integral part" of the modern OS??

How do you figure that?


RE: Complete BS.
By WalksTheWalk on 5/11/2012 9:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
What he means is:

A web browser, while being a necessary application to have these days, it not required for an operating system to run and therefore is not an integral part of it.

It is an application run is user mode to perform a task, linked to specific file types or hyperlinks in the OS, just like Word, Excel, Libre Office or any other application is.


RE: Complete BS.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Complete BS.
By delphinus100 on 5/10/2012 7:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Go install a fresh OS and don't use the browser. Tell me how far you get when you need to install driver's, security software, etc etc. Have fun!


Are you confusing 'install' with 'download via the Internet?'

I've installed those things from disk media, many times, thanks.

Now, to update some of those things over the Internet (which is the most convenient and timely way to do so, but not the only way possible), you do need some kind of browser and an Internet connection, yes. And except for Windows Updates themselves (where there's no choice), I've done it with a browser that was not 'an integral part of the OS,' but one that was separately installed by me, like all my other applications.

Indeed, its tight integration with the OS, is part of what has made IE the security risk it's always been.


RE: Complete BS.
By dark matter on 5/10/2012 3:56:07 PM , Rating: 3
"Should you be able to sue Chevy because you can't get a Ford powerplant in a Corvette?"

Such a douchbag analogy. A car is not a platform like an Operating System is.

A better analogy would be buying some shelves from Walmart and then Walmart telling you that you're only allowed to put products from Walmart on them.


RE: Complete BS.
By Farfignewton on 5/11/2012 3:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A better analogy would be buying some shelves from Walmart and then Walmart telling you that you're only allowed to put products from Walmart on them.


That's ridiculous. Your analogy overlooks the near infinite horde of non-M.S. windows software. If you want to compare Windows allowing only an MS browser to a walmart shelf, then you have a shelf with a space on it that says "this area reserved for Walmart 'bookend'" or what ever. No other bookends can go on, but books, magazines, dvds and anything else you can physically put on the shelf can go there and none of that has to be from Wal-mart.


RE: Complete BS.
By testerguy on 5/11/2012 3:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A better analogy would be buying some shelves from Walmart and then Walmart telling you that you're only allowed to put products from Walmart on them.


Nonsense. It's like Walmart saying, you can buy a shelf in our store and stock our products on it if you want. Alternatively, you can choose not to, and go somewhere else.

The customer can vote with their wallets.

I completely agree with the OP - If Microsoft wants to restrict what operates on their operating system, I think they have every right to do it. If they push that too far, people wont buy it. Remember Microsoft isn't just competing with OS X and Linux, it's also competing with older versions of Windows. It needs to give consumers a compelling reason to upgrade and any negative decisions will adversely affect that. Let the market regulate itself.


RE: Complete BS.
By The0ne on 5/11/2012 3:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
I am only laughing my ass off because what you've said is the plain and simple truth. It's not just MS, any company will do this because it's their product. And is there a company that doesn't want market share to increase profits/revenue?

I could have sworn this would have been an easy topic for most people to grasp but apparently it isn't so. Most of us, if not all, work for a company that strives to do the very exact same thing. DT is absolutely no different with the BS articles and so-called journalism (copy/paste). I'm here because of them lol For a product to succeed and most importantly for a company to succeed you have to gain market share and grow. You have to do whatever you can for the company's best interest. Consumers might not like it, other companies might not like it but at the end of it all it's your product and you get to choose what goes about it. It can't be any simpler than that.

As the saying goes "it's just business..." :D


RE: Complete BS.
By The0ne on 5/11/2012 4:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
hahah the more I read the more I laugh. The misunderstandings and interpreted meanings are the real kicker. People are either too ignorant to read deeper, Reclaimer because he said he dint' bother reading them and most likely talking from out of his ass, and/or are way to set and stubborn to look at it from another point of view. We all know you like what you want Reclaimer, you don't have to reiterate that in every post :) And it doesn't mean Jason is wrong in some parts; sure others can complain but making that statement when one doesn't fully grasp the issue is another.

It's business and it's their product. How can I put this is another way or one that Reclaimer would say...

Who the hell are you and everyone here to tell MS what they can and cannot do with their products which you have little to no clue about? They'll do whatever the hell they want with their product just as you would do whatever the hell you want with the OS and gadgets you've bought :)

Man, this sht is hilarious. It's even got me cussing and all because I'm enjoying it so much..and it's FRIDAY to boot! :D


RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/2012 1:36:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The whining from Google and Mozilla on this supposed issue is laughable and depressing, at the same time.
Why should they not complain?

This will arguably do financial harm to them, be it a little or a lot.

At the same time it will boost Microsoft's own browser offering, the same tactic it used to crush Microsoft Office competitors and Netscape in the first place (though it had some help from its competitors own lack of performance).

Call it selfish, but they have cause and every right to complain.
quote:
The difference is on Windows RT, apps will be metro apps, and only IE is given special privileges. But Windows RT is just like the iPad, which also offers no ability to change the default browser (Safari).
Last I checked, there weren't iPad laptops. There's virtually no browser restrictions in OS X -- nor have their been in Windows in the past.

If there's a Windows 8 RT ban, it applies to ARM laptops, as well as tablets. No one has banned third party browsers on a laptop before in the modern era. Not even Apple has done that. It's ballsy/crazy, to say the least.

quote:
it is Google and Mozilla in the wrong for targeting Microsoft for using the same practices that Apple and Google do for their mobile operating systems.
What? Google has allowed, even encouraged mobile Firefox and Opera.

Even Apple has allowed Opera (though Firefox remains an unrealized hope, as I state in the piece).

Microsoft's complete ban, if it sticks with it, would be well beyond what Apple is doing on its mobile devices.

And to call Google out is laughable. Google is totally open about allowing rival browsers. Heck Google even tolerates rival third party app stores like Amazon's!

I'm a big fan of Windows 8 from a design and usability perspective. And I've been accused of Windows Phone favoritism. But I consider this indefensible if Microsoft sticks to its guns.

It's pretty hard to be MORE CLOSED THAN APPLE . But that's precisely what Microsoft is doing, if the browser makers' claims are truthful.


RE: Complete BS.
By FITCamaro on 5/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/2012 1:57:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You still have yet to give a valid reason why Microsoft should not be allowed to restrict what software works with Metro on THEIR OS.

Otherwise we'll need to start forcing Facebook to be interoperable with Google+ and vice versa.
Your example is poor, in my opinion, as it describes a very different scenario in which there are no artificial barriers to market entry for a potential competitor.

Operating system platforms are generally held to a higher standard of antitrust accountability than applications, including web ones.

For example Microsoft did not get in trouble with the European Commission for having a monopoly (albeit dwindling) IE market share. Rather, it got in trouble for bundling it with its OS and partners hardware, and for refusing to make available certain OS APIs which could make third party software faster/better.

Regardless of how you feel about that, Microsoft lost in court the U.S. and it lost in Europe. It only avoided being broken up by promising to play nice and be open with its OS.

Here we're talking about arguably the most used, most critical single application in an OS environment. And Microsoft is contemplating banning it from a significant subset of the Windows environment, which controls a dominant market share.

Anyone can come along with a Facebook competitors (as Google has done). It may not succeed, but there are no artificial barriers to market entry, other than advertiser and user bias. By contrast, here we're talking about companies not even being ABLE to launch a competitive product.

You can argue that's okay, but at least recognize the situations are quite different.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
================================================= ======

And let me also ask since you're so eager to defend this tactic, even if you think it legal, do you think it is the right thing to do? How would it effect your thoughts on buying an ARM laptop or tablet, if Microsoft follows through with it?


RE: Complete BS.
By Labotomizer on 5/10/2012 2:40:08 PM , Rating: 4
But Jason, you're WRONG. You are completely misunderstanding what is happening on Windows RT.

In Windows RT IE 10 will be allowed to run both in Metro and on the classic Windows Desktop. You know, the part of Windows RT that only a handful of programs have access to. Such as Office 2013 and IE10. They are NOT restricting Google or Mozilla from writing Metro browsers. At all. And as far as I've been able to find out they aren't even disabling the ability to set them as the default Metro browser. They just can't have ARM-based desktop versions.

Please try to pay a little bit of attention before going all "down with the man!" Wow...


RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/2012 3:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've been able to find out they aren't even disabling the ability to set them as the default Metro browser. They just can't have ARM-based desktop versions.
We both goofed. You apparently missed the part about them denying third parties API access in Metro UI.

I erred on the Classic mode comment, but actually this is worse than I originally thought. Mozilla says they're denying them API access in Metro UI, essentially crippling them in Metro, the only allowed space.

In other words no 3rd party browsers in Desktop mode, and only crippled versions in the new Metro UI mode.


RE: Complete BS.
By kleinma on 5/10/2012 3:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
Where was it indicated they are denying 3rd party API access in metro? The stories I have read were that they actually opened up more APIs for browsers so they could be on the level with IE metro.


RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/2012 3:27:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Where was it indicated they are denying 3rd party API access in metro? The stories I have read were that they actually opened up more APIs for browsers so they could be on the level with IE metro.
Where do you see that?

As of CNET's latest piece (today):
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57431475-92/googl...

The Mozilla Foundation is saying that Microsoft is crippling Metro Firefox by denying it access to multiple core APIs...

(Note the plural on APIs <-- )
quote:
First, Microsoft has a browser that runs in Classic mode on Windows ARM. They are not allowing us that same access to run our browser on Classic. Second, Microsoft has a browser that runs in Metro mode on Windows ARM that has access to rich APIs that they are denying to third-party Metro browsers on Windows ARM. So, we are denied the ability to deliver any browser on Classic, and we are denied the ability to build a competitive browser on Metro.

If you have a better source please send it my way.

I appreciate you clarifying that the browsers are banned in Desktop mode and allowed in Metro UI mode, but to claim they're not crippled in Metro UI mode, when evidence is pointing to the contrary is confusing the issue.

Unless that is, you have evidence to back your claims that Mozilla and Google are being provided complete access to the same APIs as Internet Explorer.


RE: Complete BS.
By Labotomizer on 5/10/2012 5:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
No 3rd party browsers on Windows RT in the classic desktop. In fact, no 3rd party programs PERIOD on the classic desktop. This is nothing new.

Mozilla is complaining that they can't use old school programming tricks to optimize the browser. Of course Metro and Windows Run Time is supposed to eliminate this because it's managed code. It should be much more effecient. But they can't run plugins on Metro, of course that's also by design.

Mozilla:

IE 10 on Win8 is mostly win32. They have a minimal front end coded in winRT and to hook into Metro capabilities like contracts but all of the performance critical paths are running against win32.

A Metro app also runs in a sandbox that prevents things like calls in to make memory writable — something you need (and all browsers, including IE use) for a JIT, without which you cannot have fast JavaScript. It also prevents creating additional processes, something we use for sandboxing plug-ins and other browsers, including IE, use for sanboxing [sic] tabs.


Microsoft:

Microsoft’s own documentation seems to agree. In the Building Windows 8 post, Sinofsky notes that the requirement for Metro-only apps on Windows RT eliminates many of the programming tricks used by Win32 app developers, including “background processes, polling loops, timers, system hooks, startup programs, registry changes, kernel mode code, admin rights, unsigned drivers, add-ins, or a host of other common techniques.”

The trouble with those tricks is that they also enable unreliable, memory-hogging, performance-draining apps. Ironically, Mozilla itself recognized that possibility last year when it blocked a McAfee add-on for Firefox, noting the add-on “causes a high volume of crashes.” A separate McAfee add-on was flagged earlier this year for performance problems after a Mozilla engineer said it “drags down Firefox and causes huge memory leaks.” Firefox itself has long been a target of complaints over its memory usage.

By restricting apps to the Metro environment, Windows RT will prevent those sorts of problems. It will also have a completely new security model that effectively kneecaps most forms of modern malware. Forcing all third-party apps to run in the sandboxed Metro environment and restricting delivery of Metro style apps to the Windows Store eliminates the most common vector for malware.


You don't need multiple processes when a) plugins aren't allowed and b) the entire browser runs in a Sandbox to begin with, as all Metro programs do. How dare MS act in a way that secures systems?


RE: Complete BS.
By testerguy on 5/11/2012 4:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone can come along with a Facebook competitors (as Google has done). It may not succeed, but there are no artificial barriers to market entry, other than advertiser and user bias. By contrast, here we're talking about companies not even being ABLE to launch a competitive product.


This is the worst argument, in the history of the world, ever.

Just like it is not Facebook's responsibility to facilitate Google creating a competing product, it is not Microsoft's responsibility to facilitate other companies creating a competing product. Any other company is just as much able to create a competing system or a competing browser so your 'barrier to entry' argument is simply ridiculous. It is the equivalent of Facebook preventing Google's competitor working ON FACEBOOK. Which most people would see as fair enough (and obvious).

Google and Mozilla have absolutely no right to complain because Microsoft is under no obligation to build their OS in any way which necessarily guarantees compatibility with random software from other companies. The fact their decision may cost Google and Mozilla money is absolutely irrelevant. Ferraris decision to bring a new car out loses Porsche money too but that doesn't mean they can complain.

You speak about Microsoft 'banning this' as if they have some overriding say across all operating systems, couldn't be further from the truth. If Microsoft refuse to let Chrome and Firefox run on THEIR OS ONLY, fine. If people don't like that, they wont buy the new OS. The whole legal case is ridiculous too, Microsoft has every right to bundle its own browser with its own software, IMO - it's what you would expect.


RE: Complete BS.
By kleinma on 5/10/2012 1:42:45 PM , Rating: 3
Jason,

Banning 3rd party browsers makes it sound like a very specific ban on a very specific piece of software in which MS has a competing product.

The reality is actually they are not allowing ANY 3rd party desktop apps on arm. That is very different. The fact that there are NO desktop apps outside of Office and what comes stock with windows means no one is going to be spending a lot of time on the desktop on their ARM based machines. Metro will gain ground, and that is what people are going to use 99% of the time.

Then there will be the x86 based stuff, and you can do everything you did before and more, and no one can complain because you can have whatever desktop browsers you want.

This is not being more closed than Apple, this is MS trying to marginalize the desktop on devices that aren't really supposed to have a desktop anymore and move forward with the newer era of computing interfaces. For all we know large portions of the traditional windows API might be stripped from ARM based versions. Background services that were staples of x86 windows might be gone, things that were relied on by 3rd party apps may have been removed to save on performance and battery life.


RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/2012 2:04:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is not being more closed than Apple

What?

Apple allows Opera Mini on the iPad and iPhone.

I'm no fan of Apple, but please explain how Microsoft banning ALL third party browsers in Metro UI isn't "less open".

quote:
Banning 3rd party browsers makes it sound like a very specific ban on a very specific piece of software in which MS has a competing product.

The reality is actually they are not allowing ANY 3rd party desktop apps on arm. That is very different. The fact that there are NO desktop apps outside of Office and what comes stock with windows means no one is going to be spending a lot of time on the desktop on their ARM based machines. Metro will gain ground, and that is what people are going to use 99% of the time.
Exactly. And Microsoft is pushing for Metro UI to become where users spend 99 percent of their time on the laptop. It's undeniably trying to marginalize third party browser software.

For an OS maker to do this in the PC space is unprecedented.

You can argue all you like about tablets. Go right ahead. But no one... NO ONE has done this in the PC space. You cannot argue that.

Microsoft is treading on very dangerous, unprecedent ground here and quite possibly violating some serious legal promises it made to antitrust regulators, with respect to not denying third party software API access in the PC space where it has an 85%+ market share.

You can argue that it's still allowing them to exist in the semi-defunct "Classic" mode, but that's like arguing that Japanese internment in WWII was freedom, as the U.S. citizens of Japanese descent could still exist within the confines of their prison camp with a reduced set of rights.

Microsoft is undeniably making a play to boost Internet Explorer in the PC space at the cost of user freedom and openness.

I doubt it will succeed. I hope it does not.


RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 2:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, as far as I know, Opera Mini isn't allowed to be the default browser on iOS devices.

Second, MS has not banned browsers from Metro UI. The complaints are about not allowing the DESKTOP version of the browsers on the primarly METRO ONLY Windows RT. Google and Mozilla can still have their browsers on Windows RT devices, just the Metro versions. This is why their argument is laughable and pathetic. They can still make their browser, but they are arguing for special privileges on a device that competes in a mobile sphere where Apple has done the same exact thing with NO COMPLAINTS FROM THESE SAME COMPANIES. Windows 8, which will make up the majority of desktop computers and laptops HAS NO RESTRICTIONS ON THESE BROWSERS. It seems like you are arguing against something that simply isn't happening.


RE: Complete BS.
By kleinma on 5/10/2012 2:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Jason,

Maybe you don't understand the argument? Microsoft is not banning 3rd party browsers in metro. You seem to think they are. They are not allowing 3rd party applications OF ANY KIND to run on the "desktop mode" of Win8 on ARM. Metro can still have IE, Firefox, Chrome, and whoever else ports their browser to metro.

MS even opened up APIs for browser developers to give them more capabilities in Metro.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/microsoft_wi...


RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/2012 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
MS even opened up APIs for browser developers to give them more capabilities in Metro.
Mozilla claims Microsoft is still denying it APIs in a manner sufficient to cripple Firefox in its only allowed environment -- Metro UI.

I do appreciate the clarification that the browsers are banned on the Desktop mode.

But:
Banned (desktop) + Crippled (Metro UI)

is worse than my initial thought
Banned (Metro UI) + Allowed (Desktop)

At least in the original (incorrect) case, they'd be allowed to be fully functional SOMEWHERE.


RE: Complete BS.
By kleinma on 5/10/2012 4:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
From the article I linked to you:

By creating a third category of app Microsoft is also choosing to except web browsers from certain features such as Metro sandboxing, and unlock additional API’s such as background processing and extensions


RE: Complete BS.
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/2012 5:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From the article I linked to you:

By creating a third category of app Microsoft is also choosing to except web browsers from certain features such as Metro sandboxing, and unlock additional API’s such as background processing and extensions
I appreciate your link -- I added it to the new first paragraph, explaining the changes.

That said, I don't see how you're jumping to the conclusion that Microsoft is giving third party browser all the privileges that IE has in Metro.

Microsoft says (to MaximumPC) that it opened some extra APIs to third party browser makers.

Third party browser makers say it's not opening all the APIs that it's using in IE, and is hence crippling their browsers.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Microsoft may have delivered some privileges, but not enough.

Regardless, seems like everyone is in consensus on the Desktop mode ban, which should alone be enough for the EU to cook up some massive fine. They're ready to fine Microsoft at the drop of a pin -- I'd be surprised if they let that policy slide.

And regardless of antitrust issues (legality), it's hard to deny that Microsoft is -- for better or worse -- adopting a more closed approach than it traditionally has with Windows laptops, at least with Windows 8 RT laptops.


RE: Complete BS.
By Varun on 5/11/2012 1:34:58 AM , Rating: 2
Mozilla also couldn't stop a memory leak in Firefox from versions 4 to 11. I would take what they say with a grain of salt.


RE: Complete BS.
By trooper11 on 5/10/2012 3:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't ChromeOS do that very same thing?

I don't know if they explicitly restrict access to APIs that a web browser would need, but the whole OS is a browser, so that would certainly rule out any other browsers.

So yeah, someone is trying to do that in the PC space now, its Google. Now you can fall back on the idea that they have no market, but they do count as someone trying to do it.

MS definitely needs to clarify this stuff before it goes way over the top on the internet.

Windows RT is a different animal from Windows 8, hence the name change. Its arm, and therefore a platform that MS does not have a monopoly on. Just because a hardware maker decides to stuff it into a laptop form factor does not mean its suddenly part of MS' monopoly. If that were so, then Asus Transformers would put Google in the pc space as well.

Mozilla and Google are saying that MS is restricting access to api that they need to run well in Metro, which sounds to me like they are saying that there is no way around not having access to those api. Apple may not restrict in the same way, but I was under the impression that web browser had to build off the same base. Is that not true?

I wonder if this could be a case of MS reaching out to these guys to show them what they could do instead, an alternative to those api.


RE: Complete BS.
By sigmatau on 5/10/2012 7:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
I want the IE that is found on Windows phone 7.5 on my Galaxy S2. Where can I whine to get that done? It is the only browser that works for my company's portals.


RE: Complete BS.
By TakinYourPoints on 5/10/2012 1:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares? Its their operating system, and in the case of Windows RT/Metro it isn't like standard Windows or OS X for desktops, it is much more like iOS.


RE: Complete BS.
By NellyFromMA on 5/10/2012 8:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
How is it going to do financial harm to them? And why are they owed the right to do more on Microsoft's system than any other 3rd party vendor when they have not even released this product yet? They have no presence in this market.


RE: Complete BS.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2012 2:18:54 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry OP, but your post is what's BS. An analogy is one thing, but your entire argument is based on how mobile platforms function. This is about Windows 8 on the desktop. Hello?

As a desktop user, I want to be able to run Firefox or any other damn application I see fit, just like I can now with Windows 7. With no roadblocks, complications, or favoritism. This has been THE single greatest advantage to the Windows operating system for decades now.

Google and Mozilla have a very good reason to be concerned here. So do Windows users. And your post has done nothing to address these except a thinly veiled trolling of Google and Mozilla based on an absurd mobile OS analogy.


RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Complete BS.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 4:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's not simply that "Apple does it, so it's cool if Microsoft does". It's that they didn't complain when Apple did it, but they complain now that Microsoft does. Why the double standard? If they accepted Apple's position, then they should accept the same position from another company.


RE: Complete BS.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
Find me an article where they complained in the same manner as this. The reactions to Apple's restrictions and Microsoft's are not equal.

Microsoft is not "supposed" to be anything (open and supportive? What are they, guidance counselors?). They are supposed to be a business, and they can be as open as they want to be.

My argument is not that two wrongs make a right, because 1. no one has proven that this is wrong and 2. the more salient issue is that these two companies are complaining about something that other companies already do (including Google). Again I ask, why the double standard? Why is not okay for Microsoft, but okay for Google and Apple?


RE: Complete BS.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
It matters because they are complaining about a practice that is already standard and in use by those complaining! Why aren't you questioning the reasoning behind the complaints? Why is it ok for some and not for Microsoft? Sometimes you need to look deeper than just at face value. I'm sorry I am the one that needs to tell you that. I'm sorry you don't care about the double standard, and just accept whatever Mozilla and Google tell you. I am more curious about their motives and their hypocrisy. And this has nothing to do with Windows 8, for the last time.


RE: Complete BS.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Complete BS.
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, yes. Call anyone who disagrees with you a troll. It's such a great argument. Is that how you win your debates? Come back if you ever come up with some tenable facts, thanks.


RE: Complete BS.
By tastyratz on 5/10/2012 2:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
Unless of course you runt he metro ui which is a huge push from MS.
This impacts metro... PRIMARILY applicable to the mobile market but MS is HIGHLY encouraging users to switch on all platforms. It also sets precedent if Microsoft at any point decides to make metro the default primary UI for all copies of windows 8 or 9.


RE: Complete BS.
By Labotomizer on 5/10/2012 2:47:06 PM , Rating: 1
Ugh... Don't you know by now not to take what Jason says at face value?

Google and Mozilla are upset because they can only write Metro browsers for Windows RT. They can't write desktop browsers for it is their complaint. MS is in no way restricting them from writing a Metro browser.


RE: Complete BS.
By Labotomizer on 5/10/2012 2:45:12 PM , Rating: 1
Someone who is so conservative thinks the government should step in on an imaginary problem?

Microsoft isn't restricting anything on Windows 8. Windows RT, which doesn't include the classic shell for anything other than IE10, Office 2013 and things like Explorer, will still allow them to write browsers for the Metro interface. They just don't have access to the classic desktop. Like every other program built for Windows RT.

This post here proves you might be the most hypocritical person on DT. The worst part is it's not even someone trying to be a troll, just someone who can't think clearly enough to avoid being all over the f'in place.


RE: Complete BS.
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2012 2:39:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Someone who is so conservative thinks the government should step in on an imaginary problem?


Huh? Where the fuck did I say that? When did the "government" even ENTER this?

quote:
This post here proves you might be the most hypocritical person on DT.


LOL how? Where? You're making stuff up entirely!


RE: Complete BS.
By curelom on 5/10/2012 4:06:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is about Windows 8 on the desktop. Hello?


Um, no it's not. This is only concerning Windows RT which would only be used by tablet type devices. Other versions of Windows 8 run Mozilla and Google perfectly.


RE: Complete BS.
By testerguy on 5/11/2012 4:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As a desktop user, I want to be able to run Firefox or any other damn application I see fit, just like I can now with Windows 7. With no roadblocks, complications, or favoritism. This has been THE single greatest advantage to the Windows operating system for decades now.


So would you buy an OS that didn't let you?

If you have a brain, no. So what's the problem?


RE: Complete BS.
By BSMonitor on 5/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Complete BS.
By sigmatau on 5/10/2012 7:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
If MS has to make compatible their OS for other companies to put their horrid software, then those same companies should do the same. Hypocrits!

I want the MS internet browser that is on windows phone 7.5 on my Galaxy S2. It is the only freaking one that can open my company's portal. Not any of the crapdroids or icraps could do it. I want my phone to work!


By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 4:22:07 PM , Rating: 2
Do you actually believe the things you say or is there sort of "Troll Mad-Libs" website you post from?


By jnemesh on 5/10/2012 5:05:25 PM , Rating: 1
Everything I said is absolutely true. If you have a problem with my views, you are PROBABLY employed by Microsoft, or on drugs.


By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 6:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, yes, the typical straw man argument that I must be employed by Microsoft. Very effective. Fine, let's look at your arguments, and see what is true and what is not.

"This insistence on a closed ecosystem with total control over the developer's software is going to doom the platform more than anything else! I DO NOT want Microsoft to be the overlord in charge of deciding what software I can run on the hardware I OWN!"

You mean like the iPad and Chrome OS? Microsoft isn't breaking new ground here. On Windows RT, and Windows RT alone, you are limited to Metro Apps. Yes, they need approval, but we see this on almost all mobile devices. This hasn't stopped developers from making great software that obviously people want to use. If you don't want this restriction, then get Windows 8, which has none of the restrictions you appear to have a problem with.

"Add to that a TERRIBLE UI (designed, apparently, by Fisher Price!)"

I disagree that it's a terrible UI, but that is subjective, not factual. The UI works great for touch interfaces. For desktop users, the normal desktop is STILL there. Think of the Metro screen as a fully fleshed out Start screen. It is not a replacement for the desktop screen, it compliments it.

"... and hardware that will be SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than the competition, and it looks like Microsoft is trying VERY hard to fail!"

This is a straight up lie, not even a subjective statement. First of all, no pricing on any Windows 8 hardware (I assume you mean tablets, because PC components will cost the same as they always have) has been announced. From what is rumored, tablets as low as 300 dollars will be available with Windows RT.

http://www.techradar.com/news/mobile-computing/tab...

Absolutely nothing says they will be "significantly more expensive". What a complete lie.

"I don't know one person who enjoys "Metro" on the Xbox, and the only people I see with Windows Phones (also running Metro) are Microsoft employees!"

That reminds me of a Family Guy joke:
"You're no airplane pilot, I know every airplane pilot in the world!"

Your anecdotal "evidence" is not fact. I enjoy Metro UI on the Xbox, so now you know one person. I haven't heard anyone who hates it, so obviously no one hates it, right? I also have a Windows Phone, and I'll be damned if I ever got money from Microsoft.

"More and more, Windows 8 and its Metro UI look like a justification for the PHONE'S UI. Their thinking is that if they get customers to accept Metro on the desktop or on tablets, they will want the same crap interface on their next phone...but I dont see it working out that way."

Metro UI is what they decided to put on ALL their devices. The want a unifying theme, please do research on Microsoft's 3 screen strategy, announced in 2009, a year BEFORE their Windows Phones were even released. This is part of a long term effort, and yes, they want people to accept Metro everywhere, and hopefully once people get used to it, it will allow easy use across the wide span of their products.

"Me? I will either stick with Windows 7...or just bail and make the switch to Linux. I will leave "Metro" to the metrosexuals over at Microsoft."

That's cool. I'll be switching my 3 computers to Windows 8 and I'll be buying a Windows 8 tablet this winter. We'll see who made the right choice then, I suppose.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2012 6:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
Metro for the desktop PC is terrible in concept, design, AND execution. Fact, not subjective opinion.

It's inherently designed for touch monitors, which by it's very nature means the design is flawed for desktop use, because practically nobody has touch monitors and nobody ever WILL. Also "gestures" for desktop use? Ridiculous.

It's not optimized for mouse/keyboard by it's very nature, so yet again, it's flawed for desktop use.

These aren't opinions or subjective statements. They are fact. You are wrong and out of context. You are illogical. You will be assimilated.


By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
You can disable the lockscreen in Windows 8. If you'd like me to give you a link to show you how, just ask.

But for those who like the lockscreen, it shows a ton of information on it, which is pretty awesome to not have to log in to your computer just to see the time or the temperature etc.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2012 7:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and we used to be able to disable Metro entirely with a registry change. However if the answer to criticism about Metro and it's features is just to disable or remove them, then I've already made my point! The implementation on the desktop is poor, feels bastardized, and is less desirable than the OS that came before it.


By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well if your point was, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you can't please all of the people all of the time, then sure, you've made your point. But to me, the lockscreen is WAY more useful than the current one. I'm looking forward to the retail release of Windows 8, I think it will be great for my home theater PC.
However, I will say this, no OS is perfect. Thankfully Microsoft has always allowed great customization of their system, via 3rd parties. Even I have added the Up button back to explorer in my Windows 7 boxes, and tried out Stardock products. But overall, the OS is solid, and Windows 8 will be solid as well.


By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 8:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
The point of the lockscreen is whatever the hell the creator of the lockscreen decides it is! You're mad because it has quick and easy access to information that you don't have to log into your computer to get? I mean...really? It doesn't take five times longer to log in that it used to, unless you're a moron...oh wait..maybe it does take YOU five times longer, sorry.

Media Center? What? I wasn't aware XBMC had been renamed Media Center.

Oh that's right, it wasn't. XBMC will still work for Windows 8.
Oh and DVD support will still be available in Windows 8, just not Windows Media Player. VLC, Media Player Classic, all the things people ACTUALLY use to play DVDs will still work. How scary!

More FUD you've fallen for. Are you really this gullible?


By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2012 12:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Umm without Media Center and it's addons, XBMC is far from the ideal HTPC solution. Especially if you want DVR/tuner card functionality which, crazy me, I'm assuming was a given.

quote:
The point of the lockscreen is whatever the hell the creator of the lockscreen decides it is!


Terrible argument, now you're not even trying.

Anyway my point was that to do the exact same thing we can do now, it's a non-intuitive mess of mouse gestures and guesswork just to unlock your PC. How is this FUD? Please tell me how it's intuitive on a Windows OS to drag the entire log in screen vertically to the top of the screen to log in. When has that EVER been an input method used before? And why should this ever be required on a desktop OS? It's just another example of the poor mishmash that is Windows 8 as it tries to integrate things that work on touchscreens to things that do NOT work on a desktop.

Do you even understand these concepts? I'm a Microsoft fan, believe it or not, but you're just on a whole other level of blindly approving anything they do. Are you telling me Windows 8 is beyond reproach in all areas? It's perfect as-is?

Here's another gem I just love. If this doesn't prove that Metro is clunky and non-intuitive, I don't know what will.

Launch Notepad (the GUI way)

Old way: Start menu -> All Programs -> Accessories -> Notepad.

New way: Move your mouse to the lower-left hotcorner (again, no icon to indicate this exists), click to bring up the Start screen, aaand… Notepad doesn’t show up anywhere as an app. Only way to bring it up? Start typing the text “notepad” to bring up the search. There isn’t even an app search box that you start typing into - you have to start pressing keys to make this appear. Again, no icon or indicator or hint to tell you to do so.

Do you actually USE software? Seriously, I'm just wondering. Do you have any appreciation for well designed programs that are intuitive, don't get in your way when you're trying to do something, and don't make things more involved than they have to be.


By datdamonfoo on 5/11/2012 12:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Umm without Media Center and it's addons, XBMC is far from the ideal HTPC solution. Especially if you want DVR/tuner card functionality which, crazy me, I'm assuming was a given."

Truly false. The amount of people using XBMC with a tuner card is just a small percentage of all XBMC users. With the availability of digital content (which, silly me, I assumed some with a media center would know about) tuner cards are quickly becoming antiquated. Most Media Centers now focus on streaming, which XBMC does in spades, without the need for Windows Media Center.

"Anyway my point was that to do the exact same thing we can do now, it's a non-intuitive mess of mouse gestures and guesswork just to unlock your PC. How is this FUD? Please tell me how it's intuitive on a Windows OS to drag the entire log in screen vertically to the top of the screen to log in. When has that EVER been an input method used before? And why should this ever be required on a desktop OS? It's just another example of the poor mishmash that is Windows 8 as it tries to integrate things that work on touchscreens to things that do NOT work on a desktop."

I don't think you even started trying. First of all, it's not unintuitive at all to unlock the computer. As someone with a Windows Phone, which uses the same lock screen, it was pretty easy to figure out how to slide up the screen, without any hand holding to tell me what to do. Even if someone doesn't know how to do it the first time, once they get it, it's not exactly hard to remember. In any case, as I've said, the lockscreen can be disabled, so the point is moot.

"Do you even understand these concepts? I'm a Microsoft fan, believe it or not, but you're just on a whole other level of blindly approving anything they do. Are you telling me Windows 8 is beyond reproach in all areas? It's perfect as-is?"

If you are a Microsoft fan, then you are the same type of fan that complained when Microsoft went from Windows 98 to Windows XP. "It makes no sense! What's with these colors? Why doesn't ctrl+alt+del restart the computer anymore?!" There will always be YOUR type of fans, the ones that cannot accept change, or at the very least fear it. But soon you will come around when you see it's not that scary, and you actually gain a lot from the new OS.

I can see that, with your example on opening notepad, that perhaps you just aren't that good at computers. I can help you. First, there are many ways to open Notepad quickly. If, for whatever reason, your keyboard isn't working, just pin the Notepad App to the Metro Start screen. Bring up the Start Screen (which is in the SAME PLACE START WAS) and boom, there are all your apps, including notepad. Open.
That's actually LESS STEPS THAN XP.

Of course, you could always press the Windows key (you know, that all PC keyboards have) and type notepad, but that would completely invalidate your argument, so I see why you side-stepped that.

Face it, you are afraid of change and that fear has led to hate. But cheer up, soon you'll get used to it, just like with XP, and when Windows 9 or 10 comes out, you'll be clinging desperately to Windows 8 like you're clinging to Windows XP or 7.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2012 1:16:19 PM , Rating: 1
Why can't you learn to use the damn quote feature? Yesterday was bad enough, but this is just a massive wall of text!

Your level of trolling and condescension is just beyond the pale here. I love how your accusing me of not being good with computers, when you cant even use copy and paste with quote tags properly!

quote:
If you are a Microsoft fan, then you are the same type of fan that complained when Microsoft went from Windows 98 to Windows XP.


Hey asshole, there was this thing called Windows 2000, maybe you've heard of it? I had NO problems transitioning into Windows XP.

Are you seriously claiming that Windows 7 to Metro is the same departure that 98 to XP is? You're absolutely nuts.

quote:
Of course, you could always press the Windows key (you know, that all PC keyboards have) and type notepad, but that would completely invalidate your argument, so I see why you side-stepped that.


LOL okay busted, you got me there. But hey, not everyone uses the Start search feature for whatever reason. I think it's the greatest since sliced bread, but if people want to plod along the old way, that's their option. In Metro it's not. It's just another mess.

You can troll me all you want. But the jury is in already. Metro is almost universally hated on the desktop by a majority of professional software reviewers AND tester feedback. Have you even READ the Microsoft tester forum? It's virtually unified in it's loathing for Metro for desktop use.

There's an old saying about if you think that EVERYONE is wrong, the problem might be you in fact. Think it over.

And don't reply to me if you aren't going to properly quote me. I'm tired of your poor form on top of your belittling attitude.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2012 1:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and that bit about being afraid of change? Fundamentally flawed because you assume ALL change is good. You've spent all your time arguing against my opinions, but NONE of the time explaining to me why Metro is good. You can't, because it's NOT.

"Change is good" is a jingoistic tagline for idiots. Good changes are good. Bad changes are not.


By datdamonfoo on 5/11/2012 2:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not all change is good, but this becomes subjective. I can tell you why Metro is good (and most likely already have earlier, which you probably ignored):
1. It unifies and future proofs the OS, making it a malleable system that can quickly move from a touch-centric device to a more traditional system.
2. It allows for your information to be displayed faster and without user input.
3. It allows for greater memory management by "freezing" applications in place, a great boon to battery-dependent hardware.
4. It allows apps written on a completely different, Metro-centric OS (Windows RT) to still be used in Windows 8, thereby further unifying disparate systems.
5. Gives you greater control on how to display your most used apps, instead of the comparatively clunky classic start+quick launch strategy we use now.
6. And, which you are hard-pressed to acknowledge, Metro is great because it also gives you access to the classic Desktop, allowing you to do the same things you did in previous Windows operating systems.
7. Metro is just a cleaner Start Menu, that also gives you more functional and, for the first time, information at a glance.
8. You will spend less time opening webpages and applications to see if there's some sort of update of information because all that will be there on the Metro Start screen.

That was easy.

"Change is bad" is a jingoistic tagline for idiots. Not all change is bad. In fact, change is a necessary part of our evolution. I'm sure if we had listened to people like you, we would still be reading the output of a computer via punch cards.


By datdamonfoo on 5/11/2012 2:11:38 PM , Rating: 1
"Why can't you learn to use the damn quote feature? Yesterday was bad enough, but this is just a massive wall of text!"

Whether I deftly rebut your arguments with quotations or html tags, the result is the same. There is no "trolling" here, at least not from me. Again, calling someone a troll just because they disagree with you is not a way to win a debate.

"Hey asshole, there was this thing called Windows 2000, maybe you've heard of it? I had NO problems transitioning into Windows XP."

Such language! But yes, asshole, I've heard of Windows 2000. Unfortunately, it does not support your argument as it was not adopted by consumers at the same rate as Windows 98 or Windows XP. This means most consumers jumped directly from Windows 98 to XP, and therefor experienced a greater leap in OS differentiation.

"Are you seriously claiming that Windows 7 to Metro is the same departure that 98 to XP is? You're absolutely nuts."

Absolutely, or else you wouldn't be here whining about the changes. While internally Windows 7 to Windows 8 is largely the same, there are enough tweaks to the interface that it is a large leap forward. One that scares you, unfortunately.

"LOL okay busted, you got me there. But hey, not everyone uses the Start search feature for whatever reason. I think it's the greatest since sliced bread, but if people want to plod along the old way, that's their option. In Metro it's not. It's just another mess."

Except it isn't a mess. Windows 8 search is much improved compared to Windows 7 search, which was already pretty good.

"You can troll me all you want. But the jury is in already. Metro is almost universally hated on the desktop by a majority of professional software reviewers AND tester feedback. Have you even READ the Microsoft tester forum? It's virtually unified in it's loathing for Metro for desktop use."

I haven't "trolled" you, just countered your arguments. In the real world it doesn't break down into "people who agree with you" and "trolls". I'm sorry you don't understand this point. And the Microsoft tester forum is for people who have issues, so of course, all you will read are posts from people who have issues! Why would someone who enjoyed Metro or didn't have an issue post on a forum specifically made for people that DO have issues? Do you comprehend how ludicrous that sounds?

"There's an old saying about if you think that EVERYONE is wrong, the problem might be you in fact. Think it over."

Think this over. You don't know everyone. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. You know yourself, and a few other people, but you can't tell me you know the opinions of the MILLIONS that have downloaded the consumer preview. That's simply ridiculous, and you know it.

"And don't reply to me if you aren't going to properly quote me. I'm tired of your poor form on top of your belittling attitude."

I'm sorry the way I quote you isn't up to your standards. But to use it as an excuse not to acknowledge the content of my responses is a craven attempt to win an argument, and shines poorly on you.


By PrezWeezy on 5/10/2012 8:59:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
New Way: big photo screen with the time, date and Wifi status comes up. No icons or anything indicating how to log back in. To do so, you have to click anywhere, and drag the entire screen upwards to see the login screen. Let me stress that there is nothing that gives you any hint that this is what you need to do until you click, in which case when you release the mouse button the screen slides up a bit, theoretically indicating you can slide it up to reveal something. When you do so by dragging, you finally see the password box.


Or...you know...hit any button the keyboard.

Are you honestly not seeing the possibility in that design? It allows both easy touch screen and keyboard control. Your example is a failure of your ability to use the product, not Microsoft's ability to make it. I figured out I could hit enter after like 30 seconds of playing with it. Come on, it's really not that difficult unless you are just not capable of learning new things. In that case, buy a Mac, cause they are known for backwards compatibility. Or go Linux, it's super simple.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2012 1:24:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I figured out I could hit enter after like 30 seconds of playing with it.


Wow so much trolling....

This isn't about MY ability to learn new things and figure stuff out. It's an example to show how they've moved away from a universally understood and well-working concept, to something radically counter-intuitive for absolutely NO reason other than eye candy and a half-assed attempt to make Windows 8 work for all desktop AND tablet users. Why is this so hard to understand?

I'm showing how Metro is fundamentally flawed for desktop use and I'm getting personal attacks and trolling.


By datdamonfoo on 5/11/2012 2:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
People are disagreeing with you. Not "trolling" you. It's pathetic that you don't know the difference. And just the fact that others are saying it was easy to figure out proves that it's not as universally hard as you make it out to be. You say the old way is "universally understood", but what you fail to realize that it wasn't always this way. This came from years and years of practice and adopting the current strategy into society. Here's something that you may not know, everyone is pretty much used to a lock screen by now, whether by using their phone or their tablet device. It's not carrying the shell shock you think it does. Maybe you don't have a smartphone or tablet, but I am sure you know someone who does. They can help you out with the lockscreen if you are having trouble.

And I also find it funny that you complain about getting personal attacks and trolling, when you have repeatedly called people morons, idiots, and assholes. I'm sure this will be lost on you, however.


By Labotomizer on 5/11/2012 8:48:18 AM , Rating: 2
New Way Hit any button on the keyboard and the lock screen goes away. Or slide up. Or enable a picture password and skip the old school type of login altogether.

If you're going to insult something at least get the facts straight.


By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Metro for the desktop PC is terrible in concept, design, AND execution. Fact, not subjective opinion."

That isn't fact, it's pure opinion. I have read other people comment on how great it works (even on this very page!).

"It's inherently designed for touch monitors, which by it's very nature means the design is flawed for desktop use, because practically nobody has touch monitors and nobody ever WILL. Also "gestures" for desktop use? Ridiculous."

It's not inherently designed for touch monitors, as it has the classic desktop mode. Metro UI is only a part of Windows 8. And many people will have touch monitors, do you see how many iPads and Android tablets are being sold right now? And I use gestures every day when I browse, and all I hear from Mac users is how great their gestures are on their laptops.

"It's not optimized for mouse/keyboard by it's very nature, so yet again, it's flawed for desktop use." Actually, I hear it's extremely optimized for keyboard use. Apparently there a ton of shortcuts that allow for great efficiency with a keyboard.

"These aren't opinions or subjective statements. They are fact. You are wrong and out of context. You are illogical. You will be assimilated."

I'm not sure if you're ignorant on what subjective statements are, or just a good liar, but those are purely opinions. YOUR opinions. Here's the difference between a subjective statement and an objective fact:

1. The firetruck is red. (objective)
2. The firetruck is terribly designed and so ugly! (subjective)

Do you see the difference or do you need more help?


By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
No, I am not wrong. I have seen many people say that they were way more efficient with Windows 8 than they have ever been. There are no gestures forced on you, you can do it the slow, hard way you've always done it, or you can do it the new way. I think desktop users are afraid of change, (do you remember how XP was hated when it first came out?) but once they get used to it, they stop complaining (see XP, again).

For most people Windows 8 will be extremely easy, because the Start menu has been replaced with a dead-simple, large icon screen. Just like an iPad is apparently easy to new users, so will Windows 8. However, Microsoft still has the desktop which will allow more advanced users to do what they need to do.

I do think it's a great concept, and I've liked what I've seen so far. You have simply given into the FUD without taking a closer look (but we already know how you feel about looking below the surface of things!)

"This alone proves you're delusional. The viewing distance with handheld devices obviously lends itself to touch screens. Here's a hint, desktop users don't have their monitors 6 inches from their faces! Touch monitors have been out for years and they're dead in the water and always will be. Multitouch for the desktop will NEVER be practical and sought after."

You are delusional, or perhaps just "slow". Touch screen devices are everywhere now, in our phones, on tablets. Windows 8 is Microsoft's touch-screen oriented OS, but it still works just the same on non-touch screen hardware. That's the beauty of it. If you truly don't believe that touch screen tablets and phones are the biggest thing right now and in the future, you are absolutely deluded.


By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 8:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
You gave me an example that I quickly showed you was both 1. better and 2. removable. Your entire argument so far has been FUD or simply an inability to learn new things. I hope I never become that way when I'm old and curmudgeonly.

We will see that, in the end, I will be proven right. Windows 8 will be huge. Even the hold outs like you will eventually get a tablet PC and then stop complaining as you get used to the interface and put it on your desktop. It's inevitable.

"Again, what does this have to do with gestures and touch inputs on a freaking DESKTOP PC!!!!???"

Again, I use gestures all the time while browsing. I would never be as efficient as I am without mouse gestures. And Apple users always claim that gestures have made their browsing on their laptops a breeze. So there is no downside here. I never said anything about touch inputs on a Desktop PC, only that touch screens are everywhere, and Microsoft realized that touch screens are the technology of the present and future. The traditional desktop is still in Windows 8. If you need help finding it, I'd be happy to assist you.


Microsoft does it again
By lagomorpha on 5/10/2012 3:23:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This statement adds a new layer of uncertainty and doubt, because it makes it sound like Microsoft may be applying the ban not only to Windows 8 RT, but perhaps to all Windows 8 distributions.


Windows 98: Good
Windows ME: Bad
Windows XP: Good
Windows Vista: Terrible
Windows 7: Good
Windows 8: WTF are you thinking Microsoft?
Windows 9: ???




RE: Microsoft does it again
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 4:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
I know, you're trolling, but Windows Vista was actually a great operating system. I won't go into detail here, but if you want to know the problems with it, we can discuss it further.

And it's pretty clear what Microsoft is thinking with Windows 8. Bring a full OS to touch devices, keep a full OS on desktops, and have a unified app system that works on all of them.

Pretty ingenious.


RE: Microsoft does it again
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2012 4:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
Vista wasn't even "good" until Service Pack 1. It sure as hell wasn't "great" at launch.


RE: Microsoft does it again
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it was good at launch, and great after SP1.
I loved Vista when it first came out. I only marginally liked XP.


RE: Microsoft does it again
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2012 7:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
No, just stop. Stop trying to rewrite history. Vista was just bad before SP1.

quote:
I only marginally liked XP.


XP was the most wildly successful OS in the history of the planet in every measure. It's still the MOST used OS even today. You're once again just backwards to reality here.


RE: Microsoft does it again
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
No need to rewrite history, I am telling you the simple truth. It is you who has listened to the FUD spread, originally by Apple, and later by users who never even touched Vista.

While XP was the most wildly successful OS in the history of the planet (well, technically Windows 7 sold way faster than XP, as did Vista, but we'll just ignore that because you love flowery writing), it was not universally loved when it first came out. Actually, a lot of people hated the changes it made from their comfortable Windows 98 (and 95, which was basically identical). But, as I argued (and you apparently missed/ignored), they got used to XP and now cling to it with desperate hands for some reason. This is what will happen with Windows 8. You are backwards because you have a loose grasp of the facts and the inability to look past the FUD spread by others.
Luke, I can be your Obi Wan. Let me help you.


RE: Microsoft does it again
By lagomorpha on 5/10/2012 5:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know, you're trolling, but Windows Vista was actually a great operating system.


You're calling Vista great and accuse me of trolling? I must say, that was masterful. You're like some kind of troll ninja.

quote:
Bring a full OS to touch devices, keep a full OS on desktops, and have a unified app system that works on all of them.


This is fairly obvious, and quite a good move. I do not expect them to successfully accomplish such a system on their first try though. The problem is not an easy one to solve, expect lots of problems until 2014-15 when Windows 9 the it actually works edition is released.


RE: Microsoft does it again
By datdamonfoo on 5/10/2012 7:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I called Vista great and said you were trolling. Vista was great. The majority of problems came from 1. 3rd party developers (especially NVIDIA and ATI) not adjusting their software to the new OS, which they had for over a year before release, and 2. OEMs selling PCs with "made for Vista" stickers on them, neglecting the fact that their subpar hardware made it so Aero could not be run, diminishing user experience. This is why Microsoft became very selective handing out "Made for Windows 7" approvals in their next release.

Windows 8 isn't so far removed from Windows 7 internally, so I doubt we'll see many problems. Most of the problems will come from users who haven't actually tried the OS(just like with Vista) and are susceptible to the FUD spread by Apple, its users, and trolls (redundant?).


RE: Microsoft does it again
By Labotomizer on 5/11/2012 9:04:24 AM , Rating: 2
I had good luck myself with Vista.

That said I've seen it run god awful on some hardware that replacing it with Windows 7 drastically improved it. I suppose if you were one of those users you'd probably think Vista was terrible and I can totally understand that.

To be honest the "problems" with Vista were all relatively small but compounded by many factors, a few of which were Microsoft's own doing. Vista v1, which was supposed to be released in 2005ish, was completely scrapped. A lot of hardware makers had prepared for that one and then when they tossed it all aside and went back to the drawing board those vendors weren't so quick to jump on the Vista v2 bandwagon. Unfortunately this caused them to be way behind in driver development.

Then you have software vendors. This part MS handled correctly on their end. If you wrote your software following the programming guides and standards that Microsoft released when Windows 2000 came out your software would have worked just fine on Vista. Unfortunately many major vendors didn't do that. They decided they were going to assume things like their software having admin rights and ignoring basic principles like least privileged design.

Vista became a scapegoat. The things Vista "broke" due to laziness of other vendors gave those vendors plenty of time get get it all right before Windows 7 shipped. Since 7 didn't make any major changes from Vista, just optimized parts of it, the launch seemed really smooth.

MS likes to follow Major/Minor release cycles. While the core of Windows 8 isn't drastically changing, the interfaces are. Because of this you can call 8 a major change. Since enterprise tends to skip release cycles to reduce costs, and since MS does such a great job of supporting their previous OS, Windows 8 won't see large scale enterprise adoption on desktops. However it will see adoption in tablets, both ARM and x86, through BYOD policies. Consumers will have it on their home computers. This will let people get used to the new OS and interfaces on their own terms. Then 3-4 years from now when enterprise begins rolling out Windows 9 to desktops users will have already adapted and not require these large training budgets everyone likes to cite.

It's very, very smart.


RE: Microsoft does it again
By PrezWeezy on 5/10/2012 8:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
I pretty well agree on all points. All of my computers still run Vista. I hate Win7 and I'm completely skipping it. I also liked 2000 better than XP (not ME, 2000).

As for having the common app environment, I think Win8 is trying to be a bridge OS. Maintain compatibility yet move people forward. I think it's great.


Completely Backwards
By PrezWeezy on 5/10/2012 1:32:07 PM , Rating: 3
According to the Mozilla blog, you have this completely backwards. They are saying that only IE can run in the "Classic" mode. So Chrome and Mozilla will be able to use the Metro UI, but they won't be able to run in Classic. Here is the quote:

quote:
Windows on ARM prohibits any browser except for Internet Explorer from running in the privileged “Windows Classic” environment.


Which, honestly, Microsoft is only providing for some backwards compatibility and to continue using a standard code base. So I don't really understand what they are complaining about. In WinRT you WANT people using the Metro UI. This seems like they are making a mountain out of a mole hill...




RE: Completely Backwards
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2012 2:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Except every poll done and forum consensus shows that almost every Windows user loathes the very concept of "metro ui" and will be doing everything they can to get the classic UI. Mozilla and Google know this as well, which is why this is potentially harmful to them. If you have to use Metro to get Firefox or Chrome working, that's a HUGE dealbreaker.

quote:
In WinRT you WANT people using the Metro UI.


No. No we don't.

You people need to get a clue. Windows 8 has the makings of a disaster for the desktop user. I predict Windows 7 will be the new XP. Meaning it will be used by people forever and ever and ever because if Windows 8 is any indication of the future of Windows OS, it's better to stay in the past. WAY better.


RE: Completely Backwards
By tayb on 5/10/2012 4:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
I think the majority of people voting in polls about Windows 8 are probably confused about Windows 8, WinRT, and the Metro UI so I would take those numbers with a few grains of salt.

I don't think people would be nearly as upset about this if Microsoft would just call Windows RT what it is, Windows 8 Mobile. You'll only be running this version of Windows on an ARM-based tablet or a similar code base on a smartphone. This is not "Windows" anymore. Standard applications won't run, even in desktop mode.

Microsoft has done a really poor job with the marketing for Windows 8. They release mucked up architecture slides about WinRT that make absolutely no sense and confuse and annoy developers. They've also confused the hell out of .NET developers with their sudden C++ push after years and years of developing .NET tools with C# in mind. They've also done a horrible at educating people as to what Metro is and how it will be used.

Overall I think people really need to calm down. Microsoft isn't banned Mozilla or Google from developing browser applications on Windows 8.


RE: Completely Backwards
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2012 4:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree but the problem is desktop users just do not WANT to deal with Metro. That's a majority factual statement. Metro belongs on "RT8", not the desktop version.

Not just users, but I cannot find any major reviewers describing Metro on the desktop as anything other than annoying, interfering, and awkward. The transition between Metro and Desktop mode is jarring to the point that it feels like two different software companies brought it to you. Hell it's like two different OS's entirely.

Windows 8 is just DOA on the desktop I tell you. It's too soon after Windows 7, too different in all the wrong ways, and altogether not worth it.


RE: Completely Backwards
By tayb on 5/10/2012 4:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you overall. I've been testing it since the developer preview and the first thing I did was a registry hack to remove the start screen. They've since disabled that hack and I've just gotten used to it but I still don't like it. I think people will learn to accept it eventually but the adoption rate will probably be even lower than Vista.

I am excited about the tablet potential but I think Microsoft is making a big mistake with the start screen and Metro for desktop users. It is sad really because outside of the start screen Windows 8 is truly awesome. It sips RAM and they've made a ton of extremely useful UI and workflow improvements. If they would just swallow their pride on Metro a bit I think it would be the best version of Windows to date. Oh well. I'm not a stockholder in MS so my refusal to buy it or upgrade won't really effect me.


RE: Completely Backwards
By PrezWeezy on 5/10/2012 7:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You people


I'm going to attempt not to take the bait and get defensive over such a conceited remark.

That said, WinRT is specific to the tablet market (yes, I realize that someday, maybe, ARM might make a laptop, but as of now, we are talking about tablets). You seem to be thinking (based on your comment) that this will effect the desktop user as well, when it seems very clear that it will not. Only tablets will be locking down the desktop mode. I think it would be rather foolhardy to say that people should be using the "Classic" mode on a tablet, since those devices have been out for a decade and never really caught on. What is very clear from history is that on a tablet a touch friendly UI is absolutely necessary in order to function in that form factor. Whether you like the Metro UI or not is unimportant, as it is the touch friendly UI that tablets need in order to be usable.

You can argue all you want about whether or not it belongs on the desktop, (I happen to like it after having used it since the very beginning of March) but this specific article was pointing to the WinRT flavor, not the standard Win8 which will be on a machine with a mouse and keyboard.


EU
By fic2 on 5/10/2012 1:25:16 PM , Rating: 6
Maybe MS knows that the EU is struggling financially and wants to contribute another few B$ to them but don't want anyone to think they are "donating".




RE: EU
By superstition on 5/10/2012 10:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
As opposed to the USA which can be relied upon to roll over. In contrast to what Mr. Mick said, Netscape's demise wasn't helped by its alleged inferiority. At least on the Mac side of things, Netscape was by far the better browser when Microsoft decided to go all-out against it by tying IE into Windows and all that -- destroying a sector of the market (the browser that is paid for, rather than freeware).

Making fun of the EU is all well and good, but giving Microsoft a pass for destroying a sector of the market and an innovative company is hardly the alternative I'm going to cheer.


Nothing to see here
By aceofclubs on 5/10/2012 1:10:08 PM , Rating: 2
Couple Points:
1. Google and Mozilla can make browsers that use the RT API just like every other metro app. Windows RT is closer to a iOS version of windows not full blown Windows 8 with legacy mode. Only Microsoft apps (IE and Office) will be able to run in desktop mode in Windows RT machines (ARM Tablets). Battery life, overall experience, and security being the main issues here.

2. No Antitrust here: As the anti trust litigation was specific to x86 software only. Microsoft has a very small tablet market share and thus no one can even make the claim they have any kind of monopoly what so ever.




RE: Nothing to see here
By DanNeely on 5/10/2012 1:34:26 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is that the APIs available to metro apps are missing features needed to make a browser capable of competing with IE (which does have the additional API access). Specifically they're not allowed to mark memory as being writable and they're not able to create separate processes. Writable memory is needed for a JIT javascript engine (without this js is much slower). Creating separate processes is used to isolate plugins and to run tabs in separate processes to prevent crashes/hangs in one from taking down the whole browser. (The plugin container might not matter since MS has talked in the past about making metro browsers plugin free.)

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2012/0...


RE: Nothing to see here
By nafhan on 5/10/2012 1:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
Just wanted to elaborate on what you're saying with a quote from the PC World article:
quote:
Windows RT will have two environments... Metro... and a classic Windows interface. Microsoft allows only Internet Explorer to run in that classic environment, Mozilla said. ...this means browsers like Firefox... will not be able to access "vital" advanced computing functions
Sounds like MS IS restricting browser choice, but not as badly as the article here makes it sound. Other browsers WILL be allowed, but they may:
--Be less functional than they would be on other platforms
--Be less functional than IE on Win RT
--Need to have significant alterations beyond the expected UI changes

Basically, it's still something to potentially be concerned/aware of, just not as bad as this article makes it sound.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/255365/mozilla_hits...


Have to wait and see what the outcome is
By JediJeb on 5/10/2012 3:06:01 PM , Rating: 3
If this decision goes badly, maybe Mozilla and Google will band together with someone in the Linux arena and work to develop a well integrated and easy to use version that would become a strong competitor to Windows. Ubuntu has set the ground work for something like this for home based users, and actually Linux Mint has taken their work even farther to make things flow more easily. Suse and what was Mandrake are doing well in the commercial end of things, but if a group can get full backing by larger companies like Google so that they have the clout to get serious development of drivers from the mainstream hardware makers that could be the key to making a third OS that could be competition to Windows. Probably the biggest problems Linux has right now is drivers. Make drivers for it that work as smoothly as those in Windows a many more people would be willing to defect to Linux.

For myself, once they have good drivers to support my A6 laptop I will switch to Linux on that too. As far as Win8 goes, I really hate to see it come to the desktop as is, since at work it would mean all the equipment we run would be looking at having entirely new control programs written for it in the future to make it Metro based, and I know that the companies that make the equipment will drag their feet for years when that happens and we will be running in and inefficient hybrid mode of doing things for a long time, just as we did in the switch from Win3.1 to Win95, from Win98 to WinNT/2k and now with the switch to Vista/7.




By NellyFromMA on 5/11/2012 3:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
If equipment manufacturers are going to drag their feet over making new apps and whatnot for Win8, how would going to Linux be a step in the right direction? Driver support is worst on Linux in my experience when compared to Apple or Microsoft.


Seems like a smear campaign to me.
By quiksilvr on 5/10/2012 12:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
I highly doubt MS would shoot themselves in the foot like this. It's too soon to tell, but I just figured after that whole EU fiasco they wouldn't try to pull something like this.




By JasonMick (blog) on 5/10/2012 1:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I highly doubt MS would shoot themselves in the foot like this. It's too soon to tell, but I just figured after that whole EU fiasco they wouldn't try to pull something like this.

I might see cause to doubt these claims, were it not for the fact that it's extremely hard to believe that Mozilla and Google would come together to spread this kind of misinformation.

I suppose I could see Google being that sinister, but consider the most specific accusations come from the Mozilla Foundation who is a non-profit. Mozilla is about as close to a "good guy" in terms of idealistic customers-before-profit attitude as you can get.

I'm not trying to puff up Mozilla -- I don't use Firefox anymore (I use Chrome). But it's hard to imagine Mozilla outright lying about what Microsoft's lawyers have said to it.

I agree, though one way or another Microsoft will back down -- or be forced to.

As you said it's essentially "shooting themselves in the foot."

I'm dumbfounded by this development.


Windows ARM <> Windows
By kleinma on 5/10/2012 1:29:58 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe I should bitch too because the software I sell won't run on those ARM based Windows machines unless I rewrite it for Metro.

This is so rediculous that I don't know why it is getting news space. The desktop portion of ARM based Win8 is for Office, and Office only. They would not have even offered the desktop at all if it were not for the desire to have full blown office running on ARM. The ARM devices have to be very power and performance concious, and allowing the full range of desktop apps to run would probably kill both of those things. People who buy ARM based Win8 are going to be using it for Metro only and sometimes desktop office. People will have the option to use Chrome or Firefox in metro, if they don't like IE.




RE: Windows ARM <> Windows
By TakinYourPoints on 5/10/2012 2:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is so rediculous that I don't know why it is getting news space.


Standard


Only Windows 8 RT
By curelom on 5/10/2012 1:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
This ban is only on Windows 8 RT which will be used by ipad like devices. Microsoft does not have a monopoly on these devices. It doesn't really even have a presence. Firefox and other browsers work perfectly well on other versions of Windows 8.

Microsoft would not have to worry about the EU Commission because of the above reasons. They will have to answer to angry users though. But this outrage seems to be very selective. Not nary a peep about Apple and its exclusivity.




Windows RT is NOT Windows 8...
By tayb on 5/10/2012 4:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
Windows RT is completely different from the rest of Windows 8 and Microsoft is moronic for giving it such a confusing name. Windows RT would be suited much better and far less confusing if it was named Windows 8 Mobile, Windows 8 Tablet, or Windows 8 ARM. We get it, it is utilizing the new Windows RunTime Library...

None of the applications anyone has ever written for Windows from the beginning of time until now will run on Windows RT without a complete re-write or re-compile targeted for WinRT. A good comparison would be comparing it to Windows Phone and expecting your desktop apps would run on there.

Microsoft limits access to certain APIs on Windows Phone and they are doing the same on Windows RT. No one will ever notice because the user experience on Windows RT will NEVER be similar to what a user would expect from Windows 8.




Windows RT is NOT Windows 8...
By tayb on 5/10/2012 4:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Windows RT is completely different from the rest of Windows 8 and Microsoft is moronic for giving it such a confusing name. Windows RT would be suited much better and far less confusing if it was named Windows 8 Mobile, Windows 8 Tablet, or Windows 8 ARM. We get it, it is utilizing the new Windows RunTime Library...

None of the applications anyone has ever written for Windows from the beginning of time until now will run on Windows RT without a complete re-write or re-compile targeted for WinRT. A good comparison would be comparing it to Windows Phone and expecting your desktop apps would run on there.

Microsoft limits access to certain APIs on Windows Phone and they are doing the same on Windows RT. No one will ever notice because the user experience on Windows RT will NEVER be similar to what a user would expect from Windows 8.




MICK STOP IT!!!!!
By BSMonitor on 5/10/2012 4:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft forcing IE to be the default browser in it's tablet version of Win8 DOES NOT EQUAL "banning google and mozilla" from Windows 8!!

GROW THE F UP!!!




Microsoft has bigger problems...
By masamasa on 5/10/2012 5:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
Such as the manner in which they have crippled the interface for existing Windows users, trying to push them to what is clearly a 'tablet' based refinement of the o/s. From the looks of things, they are about to start a rebellion, similar to the likes of the Vista launch. Seems nobody over there is really in tune with the needs of consumers and business users. Good luck with Win 8 as you're going to need it!




Two wrongs dont make a right.
By kevlar700 on 5/10/2012 8:04:57 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe Apple block firefox apps too, makes you wonder why any one buys Iphones. Two wrongs don't make a right. Sounds like MS architecture means that in the future if they do get market share there will be a problem. Better and stronger for later to speak up now.

I'm updating my sites navigation menu to html5 now and I can tell you contrary to Microsofts adverts the web looks better in ANY other browser. XP is limited to IE8 which is rediculous but IE9 can't do nice transitions such as fading menus. I've got to install a 3Gb download just to try IE10, geesh but may get around to it. I hope running under Trident as has been mentioned won't limit other browsers renderers. We don't need Microsoft holding the web back even more.

Thankfully IE usage has halfed in the last two years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_br...

Some say Unix has zealots, yet microsoft has some of the blindest sheep imaginable. I guess because what they use gets so criticised they need to justify it to stay sane.

Here's the IE10 link for devs who want to see what doesn't work on it.

http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Info/Downloads/D...




Seriously Google...?
By NellyFromMA on 5/10/2012 8:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Google is a big boy now, it has it's own OSes and roughly half of the mobile market. It's hardly at a disadvantage, and frankly Microsoft doesn't owe ANYONE anything in this respect. I also largely disagreed with the EUs decisions regarding the browser options in the past.




Evil empire strikes again
By DaveAnderson on 5/11/2012 6:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
Monopoly being played in the land of giants.




Why?
By saishowaguu on 5/13/2012 9:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why the EU thought that they could fine Microsoft 2B dollars for that?
It's a browser that they include with their own operating system. It's common sense that it would be in the install. Now if they had actively blocked the installation or running of other browsers I could understand the lawsuit.
What next? Is someone going to sue micrsoft because they didn't allow an option to install another kind of default File Explorer during installation?
People make me sick sometimes.




By sirah on 5/11/2012 2:46:11 PM , Rating: 1
There is no end in sight to the corporate patent wars in the courts today. A few months ago I wrote about the ongoing battle between Motorola and Apple and Samsung and Apple. These cases were centered primarily around the possible misuse of FRAND patents, in both infringement and as a legal tactic. While patent infringement should be discouraged, the issue here is that the major technology companies are using these patents as a legal tactic because not only is there much at stake financially for each party, neither company wants its products taken out of the market. In recent news, Motorola and Microsoft have also been battling it out in courts both here and abroad, with a ruling given in Germany and an initial ruling in Washington D.C. The challenge in the Motorola/Microsoft cases is how to align all of the rulings so that a clear precedent is set for similar types of cases. This also may deter companies from using the courts in a similar manner because the “gray area” will be more defined. http://www.patexia.com/feed/microsoft-v-motorola-u...




Still ...
By sirah on 5/10/12, Rating: 0
"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki