Windows 8 To Natively Support ISO and VHD Mounting

MrSeb writes "With a masterful nail in the optical disc coffin, Microsoft has announced that its new operating system will natively mount ISO disc images. On the slightly more enterprisesque side of the equation, VHD files will also be supported by Windows 8. Both new features will be smoothly integrated into Windows 8 Explorer's ribbon menu, and mounting an ISO or VHD is as simple as double clicking the file. This is obviously an important addition with Windows 8 being available on tablets — and in a year or two, it wouldn't be surprising if all software is made available as an ISO on a USB drive which can be read by tablet and PC alike."

Comments

Sadly, I think Apple might win on this one

[elrous0]

it wouldn't be surprising if all software is made available as an ISO on a USB drive which can be read by tablet and PC alike

I hate to say it, but I think Apple's "walled garden" formula is probably the one that's most likely to succeed--for tablets anyway. No loading software on USB drives (Apple's tablets don't even have USB ports), no mounting ISO's, no unapproved outside software. Everything is downloaded through the official app store. And Apple/Microsoft get their cut, of course.

Even more scary is the possibility that this could become the model for not just tablets, but also PC's in the future. About the only thing stopping this now is tradition and bandwidth limitations/download caps. The days of walking into Best Buy and buying a game or application and getting a physical copy of the software could well be numbered. Of course, Linux will still be there, but how many developers will devote resources to Linux development when Apple and MS can pretty much guarantee them a locked-down, piracy-free platform (even if they do take a cut of the action)? For that matter, how many hardware developers will be making locked-down PC's that won't even let you install Linux without some hardware hacking?

Re:Sadly, I think Apple might win on this one

[CastrTroy]

Maybe you don't want this, but many people are perfectly fine running game consoles and tablets, simply because of the walled garden. I don't hear people complaining about how their game console doesn't work, unless there is an actual hardware problem. Contrast that with the complaints I hear all the time about the how people can no longer get their computer to boot because it's filled up with so much malware. The walled garden is a welcome change for most people. With the amount of junk installed on the average person's computer, I would have to say that most people should be in some sort of walled garden.

ISO mounting?

[instagib]

Are they talking about

mount FILE.ISO /media/iso -t iso9660 -o ro,loop=/dev/loop0

or is this something more advanced? If not, how is this news?
And if optical media would be obsolete, why would one want to continue using ISO files?

Once again, following Apple's footsteps

[jht]

You know, I have to give Apple all these props (yes, my life is filled with iThings, but still), but once again they set the standard. Macs have been mounting ISO images and DMG files for the last decade - I was really surprised when Vista dropped without this basic native ability and even more so when it didn't make the cut for Windows 7. Sure, most PCs still ship with optical drives but it's been more convenient for years now to ship image files than .EXE installers or zip files in most cases. You'd think that Windows would have gained this ability before now.

As said earlier in this thread, the App Store model now will begin to take over for most packaged software and for Windows as well. Linux users have downloaded from repositories for the better part of 20 years (ever since the RPM). Mac users have downloaded DMG installers forever, and now have an App Store. Retail software distribution is going down the toilet.

The only wildcard is bandwidth capping - the carriers all want it, none of the users and none of the content providers want it. More and more things are going digital. Something's got to give, and within the next year or so we'll know which it is.
 

Explain "Strong and Abusive DRM"

[SuperKendall]

it was a meek surrender on here without a whimper to some extremely strong and abusive DRM.

Look, I was and am a staunch fighter against DRM.

But that was mostly for media, because I wanted the ability to easily transfer files between devices. For music, Apple is the company that finally ended DRM. For that you should thank and support them, not curse them.

For video the matter is different, but note that when it is up to Apple - for instance in the case of the WWDC videos for developers - there is no DRM present on the media. So plainly Apple would just drop DRM video if they could, but content providers have not seen the light yet. In fact Apple just dropped a more advanced use of Video DRM - TV rentals.

Lastly we come down to applications, which is what you may be talking about. But here the DRM is a benefit to most people, because it ensures you have a signed application that you know has not been tampered with. It is about as un-restrictive as such a system could be - Apple mandates developers allow the application to be distributed across multiple devices, when some application developers would make you pay per-device if they could.

So in what way is what little DRM Apple uses "abusive"? Please give clear examples.

Re:Explain "Strong and Abusive DRM"

[delinear]

For music, Apple is the company that finally ended DRM. For that you should thank and support them, not curse them.

I keep seeing this quoted as gospel. I remember it far differently, in fact Apple publicly complained about DRM for a long time but did very little to leverage their massive buying power (they were basically the only player in town at the time) to rid us of it. It was only when several other big names in the industry started moving towards DRM-free that Apple seemed to realise there had been a sea-change in what customers wanted and, very late in the day, announced that they would follow suit. Of course they did it with the usual marketing elan that made it sound like it was their idea all along, but that's simply not the case if you look at the timelines.

They did this to protect their relevance in the market place, not to give the customer a good deal (look at pretty much everything else they do to see what they really think of DRM), although this is an interesting take on events that suggests Apple's insistance on only supporting either their own DRM (which they were reticent to licence) or DRM-free on iPods is what drove the rest of the industry down the DRM free path. To say they did that to fight DRM would be skewed thinking though, in reality they just wanted to own the distribution model the way they do for Apps (and I'm sure a lot of what they learned with iTunes shaped the Apps model so that it was fully in their favour).