Slashdot Mirror
Leaked MS Presentation Shows App Store Plans For Windows 8
FrankNFurter sends word of an internal Microsoft presentation leaked online today that contains details about Windows 8. The slides mention support for 3-D displays, connectivity upgrades, rapid startup times, and an integrated application store. Quoting Neowin:
"Consumers will be able to search on the web or locally on a Windows 8 machine to access applications from the store. Microsoft also details plans for application developers to help reach millions of users. One of the goals is to ensure licensing and monetization for developers is flexible with a transparent on-boarding process. It's clear that the 'Windows Store' will be a software service Microsoft provides and hosts fully in the cloud. The company will likely build the distribution model on Windows Azure to lure application developers."
You do know you can get a _free_ operating system to run on your computer right?
I can get a free operating system to run on a computer, but not necessarily my computer. I have had Linux distributions fail to recognize various pieces of hardware in several PCs on which I have tried them.
As long as Microsoft doesn't block installs from outside the store
Microsoft doesn't yet block what Android OS calls "unknown sources" on Windows, but it does on Xbox 360 and Windows Phone 7. To install and run something you wrote costs $99 per device per year.
Yeah, and that never happens with Windows, amirite? Oh...wait.
To reply more thoroughly to your argument, what exactly do you think would happen if Microsoft added 25% to the price of Windows OS's? 50%? 100%? At each step up, Linux (and Apple, and other) market share would increase substantially.
I love developing in .NET on Windows, but shit if they started charging me more for OS's and tools I'd be fine moving over to Java on Linux.
The only thing holding people to Windows is impetus. The vast majority of people could switch to Linux or MacOS if they weren't lazy.
Yes, but Apple's products are shiny.
I realize you're joking, but Win7 is shiny too, at least compared to free alternatives. After using all sorts of OSes over the last couple of years including Gentoo, Ubuntu, FreeBSD and Vista, 7 was nice. After Vista, I didn't expect much, but there's all sorts of tiny little things you run into that made me think "Hey, it works!".
The biggest example was probably how they handle multiple size screens on an extended desktop: click through the dialog once, and it remembers. The next time you connect that particular screen, you get your nice big desktop back. The Linux equivalent is a full workday worth of xorg research, and God help you if you want two different profiles (like laptop+big screen and laptop+projector).
Ahh yes, the immutable definition of "monopoly", right? It's not like it would change in a heartbeat if a more right-leaning administration got elected and cleaned house in the DoJ, right? I can only assume you would instantly change your opinion because of that, right?
Your second point is counter to reality. If Dell's customers want Linux, they can get Linux. You seem to be implying a lie, namely that Microsoft somehow prevents Dell or other vendors from selling Linux on their machines. In fact this is the most trite of lies: the easily disproved one.
You can wave your hands about all you'd like and use your mysterious Johnny Trustbuster magic, but you won't change the fact that ultimately if end-users want Linux, end-users can buy Linux and change the OS market.
This isn't a case of monopoly, it's a case of the tragedy of the commons, at least in the view of those who don't like Windows.
I wrote a long post debunking your argument but when I read it back I decided to say that you are a fucking moron instead. Mission critical Win32-only software is everywhere. Neither Linux nor Mac OS X can run it. Therefore they are not replacements for Windows.
Well, as a fucking moron I'd point out that there is also mission critical software on Linux.
From there, I'd point out that very few machines are "mission critical" and that if all the non-"mission critical" users decided they liked Linux they could use Linux and drive Windows into obscurity.
I'll allow you takebacksies as I like the cut of your jib. You can take back your inane point and I'll pretend you didn't make it. If Windows was relegated to just the mission critical uses, it would be a minority OS, so clearly it's a meaningless point.
[Shrug]. I guess pretending things are exactly the way you think they are is a nice gig if you can get it.
Go read the opening paragraph of Monopoly on Wikipedia. Now, you can take the easy way out and apply the "durr, Wikipedia" approach or you can just admit you're a jackass.
[A monopoly] exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Nope, Microsoft can not determine significantly the terms over which individuals have access to an operating system. Namely because there are free ones.
Now I'm bored, though. Your slavish reluctance to use your brain and instead argue through authority (durr, the DoJ at the time said they were a monopoly!) means you are a non-reflective jackass.
If even 20% of day to day "office" users of Windows switch to Linux or Apple, you would see a seismic shift in the OS and software markets. You're talking about a small number of mission critical software for which there is no analog, it's background noise in terms of any potential market share shift.