Slashdot Mirror


Windows 8 Desktop 'Just Another App'?

CWmike writes "Steven Sinofsky, president of Microsoft's Windows and Windows Live division, said this week that Windows 8 will let users treat the traditional desktop as 'just another app' that loads only on command. When it unveiled Windows 8's UI in June, Microsoft said it would feature a 'touch-first' interface to compete in the fast-growing tablet market. Underneath that, however, would be a traditional Windows-style desktop. 'Having both of [the] user interfaces [work] together harmoniously is an important part of Windows 8,' Sinofsky said in a blog post on Wednesday. The Metro-style UI — the one inspired by Windows Phone 7's tile-based design — will be the first to show up when a user boots a device. At that point, users reach a crossroads. 'If you want to stay permanently immersed in that Metro world, you will never see the desktop — we won't even load it (literally the code will not be loaded) unless you explicitly choose to go there,' Sinofsky said. 'If you don't want to do ... 'PC' things, then you don't have to and you're not paying for them in memory, battery life or hardware requirements.' If using a conventional PC with keyboard and mouse, Windows 8 users will run an 'app' to load the desktop, he said. 'Essentially, you can think of the Windows desktop as just another app.'"

375 comments

  1. But by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the version of Windows that you skip, right? Every other version is the good version?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:But by grub · · Score: 2, Funny


      s/good/less shitty/

      FTFY.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:But by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

      depends on how you count it (there was nothing wrong with windows 2000, nor was windows 95 or windows 98 the "skipable" release), but if you didn't know this was a version to skip just based on what's been revealed so far... you'll find out soon enough once you "upgrade" to it.

      Also, side note, Isn't this just disabling the auto-load of explorer.exe???

    3. Re:But by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I hope so. 2000, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, Next Version That Doesn't Suck.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:But by jo42 · · Score: 1

      I'm still running Windows XP you insensitive clod!

    5. Re:But by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      Well, 95 you went with OSR2. 2k you waited for SP2.. So maybe that's what they mean?

    6. Re:But by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      depends on how you count it (there was nothing wrong with windows 2000, nor was windows 95 or windows 98 the "skipable" release)

      You forgot Win95 OSR2. Aka 'you have to buy a new PC if you want USB support'.

    7. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope so. 2000, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, Next Version That Doesn't Suck.

      ME and Vista don't belong on the Doesn't Suck list.

    8. Re:But by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

      It looks like they're not changing much on that one, just the shell (hey, several graphical shells that you can pick and choose ! that's Innovation ! oh, wait..), and a handful of drivers. I've given up hope on ReadyBoost for SSDs. So, MS might manage to not screw too badly up that mild update. Might not even be worth upgrading on the desktop. Stay tuned, though.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    9. Re:But by dabadab · · Score: 1

      No, this is the version they never ship (like Cairo and Longhorn). What they ship instead is what you skip.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    10. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's talking about use (2000) skip (ME) use (XP) skip (Vista) use (7) skip (8) use (next version)

    11. Re:But by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:But by bonch · · Score: 1

      Some of us aren't superstitious about numbers, thanks.

    13. Re:But by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Windows 98 SE....

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    14. Re:But by armanox · · Score: 1

      NT SP4, 95 OSR2, 98 SE, XP SP2, shall we continue?

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    15. Re:But by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2

      You're thinking of Star Trek movies.

    16. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, 98 wasn't bad. IMHO, it was ME that sucked so bad you had to skip it, and started the whole pattern. I never used 2k. I tended to hold on longer even before the pattern set in, so I was lucky and missed the first skipit-release (ME). I also had the good fortune to not be dealing much with PCs during the 3.x era. I only had to deal with it in support near EOL, and from what I saw of support I was glad to never use it.

    17. Re:But by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      yes but he's stretching. Only if you're going on pure chronologically does the list work. Nobody who took the time to upgrade their computer to 2000 and get all their devices and software working with the NT-based kernal likely would have though of going to ME as any sort of 'upgrade' after that, even though it was technically released afterward.

      2000 is the spiritual successor to 98/98se. ME was just kind of... there.

    18. Re:But by creat3d · · Score: 1

      I hope so. 2000, ME, XP, Vista, 7, 8, Next Version That Doesn't Suck.

      Good news everyone, the Dunbal theorem has been proven!

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    19. Re:But by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't counting the non-named releases (although I ran them).

      If anything, the original win95 was the "it sucks" release compared to osr2. vanilla win95 is very much the "vista" to osr2's "win7". The thing is, even in all it's buggy crashy laggy form, The UI on vanilla win95 was a breath of fresh air compared to the suck that was windows 3.1 (and 3.11), so it doesn't fall in to the "it sucks worse than its predecessor" behavior that ME and Vista exhibit, only the "it sucks worse than its successor" behavior, which I think is probably completely normal and expected.

      Honestly I can't remember the major differences between windows 98 and 98se. I don't remember having a single problem with 98 that didn't also exist in 98se, but it has been a decade since I last used it so I may have forgotton.

    20. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like Borland, all of their even number versions SUCK. Bye Bye Windows 8, hello Windows 9.

    21. Re:But by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      I wish I could still run Windows 2K - I would never had upgraded to XP if my computer had been able to run it. Although XP SP2 is a pretty good OS - even now.

      Come to think of it, My work computer has XP but with the classic 2K interface and the Lubuntu on my laptop at home has a grey task bar and 2K-style start menu. I guess I'm just old school.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    22. Re:But by spazdor · · Score: 2

      I think it's more like 2000 was the spiritual successor of NT4, and ME was the successor of 98.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    23. Re:But by kryliss · · Score: 1

      I bought Windows ME Upgrade because at the time Office Max was giving away a USB Zip drive with it... (which cost more than Windows ME Upgrade to buy outright and came with a 100MB zip disk...)

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    24. Re:But by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think my windows OS experience (on computers I owned myself) went: 3.11, 95, 95osr2, 98, 98se, 2000, xp (waited until sp1 though. I liked 2000), vista, 7

      I didn't really skip any version except ME, and that's only because I had already upgraded to superior technology in the NT kernal with win2000. Looking back on them, the only one I think I really would have skipped would have been Vista, and maybe the original 98, and that's only because 98se came out so quick on the heel of 98 and remained the standard for a good while... but that decision would only have been in retrospec. There was no way you could have known that at the time, and vanilla 98 was superior to win95 osr2.

    25. Re:But by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      There are good ones? Windows XP was tolerable, I suppose...

    26. Re:But by Whalou · · Score: 1

      Whatever helps you sleep at night. :-)

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    27. Re:But by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Vanilla XP was pretty good. I had to administer a machine that couldn't be upgraded because of some arcane bug that always killed the updater and I didn't have OEM install disk for it, but with proper firewall and non-stupid users, it ran well into 2008 with no problems (except for lack of faster USB support).

    28. Re:But by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Major difference between vanilla 98 and SE was stability. Back then, windows crashed on regular basis, and SE was just extremely solid and could run for days without rebooting, while 98 required restarts every few hours on most systems.

    29. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, due to the "dot-one" rule. All x.1 Windows are great... 3.1, 98 (4.1), XP (5.1), 7 (6.1)

    30. Re:But by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Isn't this just disabling the auto-load of explorer.exe

      No. Explorer.exe is a lot more integrated into the OS.

      This is more like giving you a phone OS in which the desktop OS is an app.

      Interesting concept, since on most phones you have to jailbreak to get to something that acts like a computer instead of a PDA.

    31. Re:But by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      I for one don't care. I've decided to skip all future versions of Windows and switch to Linux back in 2006. So far, I haven't found a single good reason to change my mind.

    32. Re:But by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      2000 was the technological successor to NT4, yes of course, but I felt at the time that 2000 was the jump-in point to the NT kernal for those of us using the 9x kernal. That's why I called it the "spiritual successor". UI and organization was much more like 98 than either NT4 or ME (or XP).

    33. Re:But by Fritzed · · Score: 1

      ME is better described as the inbred child of Windows 98, not a true successor.

      --
      Spooooon!!!!!
    34. Re:But by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

      I dunno, assuming you're not emotionally invested into the FOSS vs Proprietary closed source OS arguement, which I'm not, and you're judging each OS on it's own merits and how it fits into daily computing in the modern era... Windows 7 is a pretty strong entry. Have you given it a fair shake? used it for a few weeks daily?

      I switched from XP to linux in 2009. I switched back to Windows about a year later because while I liked linux better than vista, I liked 7 better than linux.

      Hey, I like to say "screw the man" as much as the next guy, but I just enjoy my computing experience more on 7. your mileage may vary.

    35. Re:But by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      2000 is the spiritual successor to 98/98se. ME was just kind of... there.

      spiritual? Well it sure wasn't the architectural successor. Let me help you there.

      OS/2 begat NT (New Technology) which begat NT 3.5/3.51 which begat NT 4.0 which begat 2K which begat XP which begat Longhorn which after being completely stripped of all dignity became VISTA which begat 7.

      Windows 3.1 (By most account the first usable version) begat WFW 3.11 begat W95 which begat W98.

      ME by most accounts was simply W98SE with the registry reconfigured to prevent you from using the CLI for anything useful.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    36. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I see you're not a gamer. I've played around with a few flavors of linux, but I'm not going to give up my games for it. And yes I've tried wine, cedega, etc - give me a break. Direct X "just works", every time. I have a dual boot box and I rarely boot into linux. Just to do online banking really.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    37. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pattern recognition is superstition?

    38. Re:But by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Major difference between vanilla 98 and SE was stability. Back then, windows crashed on regular basis, and SE was just extremely solid and could run for days without rebooting, while 98 required restarts every few hours on most systems.

      Ooh, DAYS!

    39. Re:But by molesdad · · Score: 1

      Ive skipped every version since 98.

      --
      If the shoe fits, it's ugly.
    40. Re:But by molesdad · · Score: 1

      I was a gamer until it became obvious that games were just an excuse for having a windows machine, now not so much; mind you I am 45 and all the fun of lan gaming has been removed. Porn on the other and well used hand is OS agnostic guess I don't need games.

      --
      If the shoe fits, it's ugly.
    41. Re:But by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      "A spiritual successor, sometimes called a spiritual sequel or a companion piece, is a successor to a work of fiction which does not directly build upon the storyline established by a previous work as do most traditional prequels or sequels, but nevertheless features many of the same elements, themes, and styles as its source material." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_successor

      replace "fiction" with "OS". I am quite familiar with the DNA of Microsoft's operating systems.

    42. Re:But by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      OS/2 and NT were barely related - that's a myth. NT started from scratch, was cleanly 32-bit, and used completely different API's. They were related only in the sense that they were both successors to DOS.

    43. Re:But by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

      uhh....

      1. click start button.
      2. type in \\192.168.60.99 (or whatever your print server address is.)
      3. double-click on the printer you want.

      congratulations, you've now got your network printer configured on your machine.

      the only way it could be any easier is if you just simply talked to the computer and said "computer, configure a network printer. you know which one I want."

    44. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean "WinCest"?

    45. Re:But by ajo_arctus · · Score: 1

      That's the truth. I don't even know why we're bothering to discuss this stuff, since it's the same every time - grand promises and pie-in-the-sky stuff that will never materialise. They've been this way for as long as I can remember (though, to be fair, they pretty much owned 8-bit BASIC, so maybe they started off OK). I bet they keep the ribbons though, since it seems they've already coded those :(

    46. Re:But by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

      I'm getting closer to that way.
      With the number of PC games being dumbed down for console ports, I will not have a use for Windows any more (except for my wife to print coupons).

    47. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought according to Slashdot that *EVERY* version of Windows is the version that you skip. What happened?

    48. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and no.

    49. Re:But by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Back then, windows crashed on regular basis, and SE was just extremely solid and could run for days without rebooting, while 98 required restarts every few hours on most systems.

      See, this sort of transparent bullshit is why no-one takes you folks seriously.

    50. Re:But by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      No. Explorer.exe is a lot more integrated into the OS.

      Explorer is no more "integrated into the OS" than bash is.

    51. Re:But by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      OS/2 begat NT

      There's about as much "begatting" between OS/2 and NT as there is between Windows 98 and Windows 2000. Probably less, in fact.

    52. Re:But by coolmoose25 · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points man... Even numbered Star Treks, odd numbered DOS versions. True. True.

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
    53. Re:But by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

      I am quite familiar with the DNA of Microsoft's operating systems

      If that were true you would have said XP was the spiritual successor to 98. The whole reason there were two versions of windows was because NT/2K could not play games.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    54. Re:But by N0Man74 · · Score: 3, Funny

      And XP wasn't useful until SP 2 also, right? (Yes, that is sarcasm)

      Win95 was worth upgrading to (from Win 3.1 or 3.11) even when Win95 was in beta. In fact, the only 2 versions of Windows that I can recall there being much resistance to were ME and Vista. You *could* skip Win98 if you already had 95 (in most situations), however there was no good reason to choose 95 over 98 if you had to choose one from the start (as might have happened between Vista vs XP, or ME vs 98SE).

      I think you are confusing Windows versions with Star Trek films..

    55. Re:But by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      I might not be a gamer by my own standards from when I was a teenager and I don't keep up with the latest and greatest gaming hits but I still play a lot. Most of the games I play either have a native Linux version or run fine in Dosbox/Wine.

    56. Re:But by FatRichie · · Score: 1

      This, this, 1000 times this! Connecting to another computer/printer on the network is just this simple on any version of Windows. Typically, if the printer install is difficult, it's due to a horrible installer made by the manufacturer (I'm looking at you, HP).

    57. Re:But by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      No, predicting the future is retardation.

    58. Re:But by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      My definition of "daily computing" is pretty far from Microsoft's target audience. I spend a lot of time working in command line because that's the best way to do what I need. So unless Microsoft builds some future version of Windows on UNIX base like Apple did its OS X, there's very little hope of me going back.

    59. Re:But by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 2

      Isn't this just disabling the auto-load of explorer.exe

      No. Explorer.exe is a lot more integrated into the OS.

      This is more like giving you a phone OS in which the desktop OS is an app.

      Open the task manager and kill explorer.exe

      You lose the desktop icons, the taskbar and any open Explorer/Control Panel windows, but the OS keeps on working, you can switch between open programs with Alt-Tab and open new programs from the task manager.
      Explorer.exe is only a few UI parts, I can imagine that Win8 wil load/unload it on demand, when an "old style" program is started or the user wants to switch to the "regular" desktop.

      When done with this experiment just start explorer.exe again and everything is back to normal.

      (Tested on Windows 7)

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
    60. Re:But by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      this sort of transparent bullshit is why no-one takes you folks seriously.

      Exactly.

      You might have got "days" of uptime with 98SE if you didn't use it, but put it under any sort of load and you'd be bluescreening/rebooting a lot sooner than that.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    61. Re:But by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      It was 98 wiseguy. Back then linux was an os that was barely starting to look decent, mac os was a joke that only graphic designers used, unix was widespread on server world to far greater degree then it was today, and having a consumer PC stay up for days without need to reboot was a fucking miracle.

      Next you should giggle about using single and double digit megabytes to measure RAM size.

    62. Re:But by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      Yeah.
      To be honest, if they added this functionality to Tablets and Smartphones, I'd definitely be looking at it. But Desktop windows? The Tile UI would be one of the first things to be disabled(via some sort of crack if needed) on any decent machine. Fortunately, I'm happy with KDE 4.7, so... I don't have to worry!

    63. Re:But by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      My 98SE running IRC bot machine had an average uptime of a couple of days, mostly running IRC stuff, mail client, netscape, and winamp. I suppose if you do nothing but install and uninstall stuff, or stress system in other creative ways, you'll crash it far sooner, but for average user, it really could stay up for entire evening at the very least.

    64. Re:But by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      Uh... what?
      NT, I'll give you. I remember not being able to get Myst running on an NT4 box, but I played *many* games on several 2K boxes.

    65. Re:But by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      I did the same thing...but despite having W7 on my laptop... Linux is far faster, easily extensible, and doesn't take 5 minutes to shut down.
      It also doesn't freeze the UI(for a few seconds) under *most* conditions, something I've had happen on windows 7 a number of times.
      And this is on a hefty, stable, high-quality Thinkpad T500.

      Oh, and there's no WGA to suddenly decide your *genuine, purchased* copy of windows suddenly isn't genuine, and won't let you(easily) change keys to *another* legit version.

    66. Re:But by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Ah, I getcha. Yeah, that's a cromulent comparison.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    67. Re:But by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      stress system in other creative ways,

      Like editing video.

      It was a frustrating time - the 9x series had the FAT32 file size limit, and wasn't stable enough to render long videos, while NT had no AV hardware support...

      I kept my Amiga/VLab Motion system running almost to the '00s because it actually worked.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    68. Re:But by porl · · Score: 1

      i used to use litestep all the time when i used windows regularly. hated it at first but eventually got it set up how i wanted and hate using explorer to this day (yes, even on win7)

    69. Re:But by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Buggy codec/driver interaction crashing OS. Hell, that plagued XP as well, through to a lesser degree.

      Not really OS's fault though.

    70. Re:But by porl · · Score: 1

      windows 2000 was supposed to be what we look back at xp as being, but didn't sell as well as expected. thus winme was thrown in to fill in the gap while the nt-based consumer/enterprise combined os was redone and became xp.

      the main issue with 2000 was hardware support. by the time xp came out the driver list for 2000 had increased (much like vista->win7 but in terms of outright support rather than stability)

    71. Re:But by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Really? I never felt like 2000 was meant to be the jump-in point to the NT kernel. If it was, the starting point probably shouldn't have been the "Professional" edition. :-P

      2000 might've been useable for home users (unlike NT4 and its lack of DirectX support), but the real jumping point probably wasn't intended to be until XP's Home Edition.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    72. Re:But by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Well to be fair with win2K you really needed to wait until SP2 before it was nice and stable, and Win98SE was a hell of a lot better than vanilla Win98.

      But everyone here seems to be missing the forest for the trees on why this has UBER FAIL written all over it, and frankly the only good that will come from Win 8 IMHO is Ballmer finally being forced to "pursue other interests". so what is the uber fail? Simple it is Placing Windows on ARM and calling it Windows which is a Titanic level disaster. It was like my local CL right after Xmas, when there was literally a ton of ARM netbooks being dumped for pennies on the dollar. Why? Because they had been sold as "Windows netbook" with in tiny letters "Compact Edition" and a theme that looked like WinXP. So folks bought these thinking they could run their Windows programs and when they couldn't? Shitcanned they all went.

      THE EXACT SAME THING is gonna happen with win 8 and it is a clusterfuck of insanely stupid PHB levels of fail. Folks will buy all these ARM devices with "Windows 8!" in bright letters and when it doesn't run their Windows programs they are gonna be returned en masse. you are gonna have pissed off customers, pissed off retailers, this is Sega levels of stupid and hopefully will be the last dumbshit move Ballmer ever does.

      What they SHOULD be doing is promoting winPhone for ARM, in Home and Pro flavors for consumers/businesses respectively, add a few new "must have" features to Windows 7 (I would suggest a Homegroup style app that makes remote access a breeze) and call it a day. Instead Ballmer who has such a stiffie for Apple it ain't even funny anymore will try to rip off iOS and fail miserably. That is why I still think the Gates borg should be replaced by ballmer in a "I Heart Apple!" beanie with his tongue out, as it fits the batshit Apple worshipping stupid that is Ballmer's rein at Apple.

      On a final and slightly OT note, I was one of those that LMAO when the Pepsi guy was running Apple into the ground. Now that the shoe is on the other foot? I'm sorry okay? it really ain't funny anymore! I had NO idea how badly a CEO could fuck up a company before now, so can we have Bill back? Pretty Please? Its only fair, you got Jobs back before the company was completely killed, now its our turn. Bring back Darth Gates!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    73. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skip 98 for 98SE. Skip ME for XP Skip Vista for 7.

    74. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Explorer.exe is a lot more integrated into the OS.

      No, explorer.exe is just a desktop shell. You could have Windows start with cmd.exe if you prefer a command line. And you have been able to do so since Windows 2.0. Windows 2.x/3.x required editing .ini files, but it's been in the Registry since Windows 95.

    75. Re:But by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Actually funny thing that, quite by accident I tripped over the reason why WinME sucked when i found a machine to this day that runs WinME beautifully. After doing some tests I found what the problem was in WinME it was....VXD drivers. the perfect machine had ONLY WDM drivers, and every test i ran on older machines around the shop showed WinME became unstable as hell with VXDs and just a pile of shit and bugs with VXDs and WDMs, which is what most machines were shipped with.

      Vista was just released waaaaay too soon, with several beta testers (myself included) pointing out show stopping bugs that were ignored to make ship date. I know I reported horrible bugs in network file transfer and network shares right up to the end of the beta program and was apparently ignored as the last time i tried to use Vista (after SP1) the bugs were still there. Compare this to 7 where I ran it from beta right up to RTM and no major shop stoppers, still running my install from Oct 09 with NO major or frankly even minor bugs to report. The closest I found to a bug was the occasional need to reconnect network shares when waking from sleep, but that could be an internal firewall problem, it is so quick to just reconnect i never bothered to test further.

      So he is not confused, he just has more experience than you on the subject or you have rose colored glasses. There were serious "plug in the USB device and pray it don't BSOD" right up until the switch from 9X to WinNT with Win2K, WinXP came by default with the firewall OFF (WTF?) up until SP2, and up until Win 7 I ran into show stoppers with every RTM release of Windows, of course I ran more weird and hot rodded hardware than most so YMMV.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    76. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2000 was what XP was supposed to be, but they released it early. They wanted to combine the NT and 9x lines. 2000 didn't game well enough, as it was too technologically NT and not 9x compatible enough, so ME was released as a Win98 SE v2, where they threw in half-baked features to hide the fact they didn't touch the OS other than to make it worse. The reason it looked like 98 is because, though it supposedly didn't have a single line of shared code with 98, it was supposed to lure people away from the 9x line to the NT line. XP finally achieved that. ME was so that they weren't selling computers in 2003 with "98" for the OS. 98 SE was the best consumer Win OS until XP. ME was so MS could bridge the gap chronologically, even if not technologically.

    77. Re:But by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      You can absolutely do this.

      But there are a lot of APIs that the documentation appears to indicate are being provided by Explorer. Some of them are things you would expect, some of them aren't. (It's really an odd list if you ask me.)

      Do those still work if explorer.exe isn't running? I have no idea to be honest.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    78. Re:But by Mindflux0 · · Score: 1

      This is interesting. I always heard from everyone, everywhere that WinME was soooo horrible. Yet I remember upgrading a couple machines to WinME way back when and they ran perfectly. Faster than before and no problems whatsoever for years. I never even used 2k, it was slower. I was always confused as to why everyone hated it so much. I guess this makes sense.

    79. Re:But by bronney · · Score: 1

      My P3 866 on WinME runs better than everyone I know at the time. So yeah it's not the OS. Besides VXD drivers, I think it had something to do with VIA chipsets and ATi video drivers at the time. And those soundblaster live drivers at the time were quite violent. It took just one wrong step for a newbie to screw up the computer real bad.

    80. Re:But by unixisc · · Score: 1

      NT was more related to VMS, than to OS/2.

    81. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Cairo XP?

    82. Re:But by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      also works with 95 > 95B

      (95C, "Windows 97" breaks the pattern though, but it's best to pretend that one never existed anyway)

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    83. Re:But by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      No. Explorer.exe is a lot more integrated into the OS.

      Funny how I can open the task manager and kill it.

      If I can find it among all the other "explorer.exe" tasks, that is...

      And whoever thought it was a good idea to make me kill all the open explorer windows before I can restart the desktop? Take him out back and shoot him.

      --
      No sig today...
    84. Re:But by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Oh do NOT even get me started on the SB drivers! I used to run a Windows help line on IRC and you have no idea how many "ZOMG my PC is fucked!" I had to deal with that were traced to either SB or Via drivers.

      ATI wasn't bad IF, and this is a damned BIG IF, you made DAMNED sure you ran the right version for your card! There were so damned many variations (most folks don't know there were even OEM variations ON TOP of the chip variations and running a standard driver with a OEM chip was FUBAR) that is was beyond simple to royally fuck yourself with the wrong choice.

      My old boss Doug had me spot weld two PC skeletons together and we loaded a Celeron 400 MHz (this was when 1GHz had just come out, so we had plenty of those) and we mounted TEN, count 'em ten SCSI drives in that Frankenbox so that when most folks were lucky to have 30Gb we had nearly 500Gb running WinNT server on the network JUST FOR DRIVERS. We had EVERY chip, every variation, every OEM, you name it we had it, all right there on the network.

      BTW if you like to play with old hardware, might I suggest something? look up "TinyXP" and give it a spin. We are talking a fully loaded XP that runs on less than 74Mb of RAM, or if you can luck into a copy there is "Windows Ultra DVD eXperience" that gives you sixteen variations of Windows Win2K-XP-2K3. Of course it will run without a key but the nice thing is it'll take your Windows keys so it is like having a pre-tweaked Windows ready to go, and the Ultra DVD will let you burn whichever version you want easy as "clicky clicky" and there is an .ISO.

      Anyway if you have old hardware laying around it is quite cool to play with. Frankly they need to hire the Tiny guy at MSFT, because I have tried both winFLP and embedded and the tiny versions royally smokes both of those hands down. I mean when the guy releases Tiny7 that runs VERY FAST on a 1.5Ghz with 512Mb of RAM? Or even tinyVista that runs equally fast on the same hardware? that's just nuts!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    85. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have a PS3 and Wii. Who wants to sit on a chair in front of a PC, when you can sit in a couch in your living room?

      Using linux since 1997 and telling all people to stick with Windows. Like that the mindless hordes don't bother me. I'll give you that Win 7 is better than what came before (how can it not be?), but if you like to actually use your brain (instead of consuming), it's not an environment where you want to hang out.

    86. Re:But by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well to be fair with win2K you really needed to wait until SP2 before it was nice and stable

      Personally I used it from the RTM version two months before release, and it was a godsend compared to 98se and ME, which was bad and much worse respectively. I had a few application incompatibilities to sort out but the stability and pretty much everything else was revolutionary from day one IMO. I'm sure it got better up to SP2 but 2k was already ahead of the competition from the start.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    87. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never used Vista RTM, but I've been using Vista SP1 and then SP2 flawlessly for the past few years. I'm not sure what the complaints were about because it runs great for me.

      Can you point out some of those major bugs that you found in SP1 and SP2? I'd like to see if I can reproduce them.

    88. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even a completely clean installed Win98SE crashed automatically after thirty-something days due to the uptime counter overflowing

    89. Re:But by bronney · · Score: 1

      Glad to hear bro, I thought I was the only one :D It's fun to know what you're doing with PCs :)

    90. Re:But by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't know, I never had it stay up that long.

    91. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that "Open|Save File" dialog that pops up when you try to open|save a file from any application that uses the OS-provided API?

      That's Explorer.

    92. Re:But by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      nor was windows 95 or windows 98 the "skipable" release)

      Oh, so that's what I did wrong - apart from some testing on various of my spare machines, I skipped straight from Win 3.11/ DOS 6.22 to NT4, then from there to Win2k, and from there to Vista (forced by my main laptop blowing it's video card a couple of days before going to work abroad) and from there to Ubuntu. So you're saying that if I'd used one of the Win9x, I'd still be using Win7 now?

      Riiiight.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    93. Re:But by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      When done with this experiment just start explorer.exe again and everything is back to normal.

      Not quite, at least under XP: clicking a taskbar button to minimize the window doesn't work, and some apps with tray icons don't reappear in the tray when Explorer starts back up. Nothing show-stopping, though (well, that tray icon one is bad, but it's fairly rare, and to fix it you just kill the process with task manager and re-open it). I haven't tried it on Windows 7.

    94. Re:But by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Funny how I can open the task manager and kill it.

      Sure, but what you don't realize is that its DLL files are still linked into and used by all sorts of other processes, such as embedded IE (HTML help files, for one example), File Open/Save dialogs, etc.

      But try this with Explorer killed.

      Open Notepad, file, open, all files, browse to desktop, right-click any shortcut, "Find Target". Should: Open folder containing shortcut in Explorer. Does: nothing.

    95. Re:But by black+soap · · Score: 1

      I can predict lunar cycles and sunrise/sunset times with ridiculous accuracy. Does that make me retarded?

    96. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's just too early in the morning, and I'm missing the point, but...

      Are you pointing to something that should open in explorer not opening in explorer as an example of things that go wrong when explorer isn't running?

    97. Re:But by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      The point was that the dialog requires Explorer to be running in order to work properly, i.e. it's "integrated" with Explorer.

    98. Re:But by raphael75 · · Score: 0

      What do you do that requires only command-line interaction?

    99. Re:But by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I recently ran into a guy who owns a race car. He has a program that logs sensors and does some other stuff for his car. He recently bought a new computer after his old one running xp died. The new computer runs win7 and he was telling me how horrible it worked with his software. He stated he had bought the computer just to run this one program and that it had never been hooked to the internet and asked if it was possible that it came with some kind of malware on it. I'm considered a computer "expert" where I work although it's really just a hobby for me and I explained to him that I didn't really fool with windows much since I mostly run linux on my systems but after asking him a few more questions it occured to me that he had never done any windows updates. I know the shitty computers we have at work update all the time and they run 7 so I advised him to hook to the internet and ONLY connect to windows update and download and install all the updates and fixes. Bingo! What took hours now runs in a few minutes. He was amazed at the incredible difference it made. I don't know if it was actually windows software specifically. It might have been a java update as far as I know. Regardless updates are important with any windows os.

    100. Re:But by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I've used tiny XP from time to time in virtualbox when I have something that wont run in wine. It really does work well in a virtual environment.

    101. Re:But by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Well that is a backhanded compliment at best as Win9x was a buggy little fucker from the get go. Who can forget that video of Gates plugging in a printer and the whole thing BSODing? But with Win2K I found it REALLY depended on which chips you had whether or not it was rosy or sucktastic.

      Now don't get me wrong, even at its worst it was miles ahead of Win9x (I too ran RTM, I was actually given a copy my boss after complaining what a POS WinME was) but certain chipsets, like the Ali and Via? Could be seriously flaky. I ended up getting a cheap soundblaster just so I wouldn't have to keep rebooting to get my damned Via sound to work.

      But I'd say the whole WinNT line with the exception of Vista was made of win. I had several customers that held onto WinNT for ages just because of how stable it was, Win2K was decent OOTB but after SP2 was frankly kick ass, WinXP was okay but after SP2 was also kick ass, and Win 7 was awesome from the get go. Vista? It was released half baked and frankly never really got any better. It would probably need a couple more SPs to iron out the bugs but now that they have Win 7 why bother?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    102. Re:But by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      There's no reason to go to Windows 8.

      Modifications to pieces of the OS such as the file browser are too tiny as far as modifications go to even remotely consider it a reason to upgrade. Even if they added some nice features it still wouldn't be enough, as Windows 7 has more features, and is easy enough to use that it should last us another 10 years. Unless you have an older version of Windows and it is necessary to upgrade to Windows 8 there's no reason for it.

      Microsoft will use this 'pre-installed" (on new hardware) OS tactic to leverage it into a required OS, but in reality it isn't necessary.

      Vista was the pig with lipstick. Windows 7 was pretty decent though not necessary. Windows 8 just isn't necessary no matter how you paint it.

      I'm sure as time goes by the idea that Windows 8 is an unnecessary upgrade will hit further and further home with everyone.

      Give it up Microsoft, we want free and open systems unlocked and untied to stores like Apple. I think this finally could purport the success of alternative OSes. For Ubuntu, unfortunately, it fails the user with that Unity desktop. Gnome 3 is little better. Maybe KDE will get some long due respect.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    103. Re:But by luxifr · · Score: 1

      Maybe KDE will get some long due respect.

      No it won't. While current versions of KDE aren't just as unstable and buggy as the first releases of KDE4 it's still slow, even on descent machines. It's a mess with the Linux desktop right now. Gnome2 will die, Gnome3 is nearly as bad as Unity and XFCE is a little too lightweight for being comfortable for the average joe... let alone LXDE and such. When KDE4 finally becomes as responsive and finally feels as smooth as Gnome2 did, THEN maybe it'll get some long due respect.

      I think the general problem is the tablet hype. Sure they've arrived finally. But what unnerves me is that everyone sacrifices the ordinary PC experience in favor for the tablet experience when it comes to new desktop environments. When I'm using a mouse and a keyboard I don't want a touch optimized interface. And I don't want to start a "desktop app" from such an interface when I boot up my computer every time just to be able to use it. And touch screens are no solution either. Touch doesn't work for vertically mounted screens. What does work is the default Windows desktop GUI being used on a tablet with nothing but touch - at least for Windows 7 that's true (tried it on a WeTab... worked like a charm!)

    104. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went from OS/2 2.0 to NT 3.51, and then NT versions from then on. All of 9x was crap as far as I'm concerned, a fancy GUI and utility suite on top of DOS.

  2. Finally by Mensa+Babe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Before anyone jumps on the band wagon and says that we all have perfectly usable user space desktop apps for 28 years in the UNIX world, let me say that it is actually very important that now even Microsoft starts to understand that modularity is the way to go while designing complex systems. Moving various operating system components to the user space is just a logical conclusion of the research done during the last four decades. Look at the direction of modern OSii development, from MINIX to GNU. Started by GNOSIS, KeyKOS, EROS and Coyotos this trend seems to suggest that it is much more natural and reliable to design a secure capability-based system when all of the services are separated from each other. Now when even Microsoft is going in that direction - and it is not a trivial change for them, trust me - we can expect Apple and other OS vendors to follow which is a Good Thing. After all, even if people like you and me are using secure operating systems we still don't want to get spammed and dossed by all of the legacy machines out there. It turns out that the rumors that Microsoft is starting to take the latest research in operating systems seriously turned out to be true. This is good news for everyone.

    --
    Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone wih an uid like yours should have Karma: Excellent.

      Therefore I suggest you to change your sig to:

      Karma: Positive (probably because I'm a dumb troll)

    2. Re:Finally by kbrannen · · Score: 2

      It would be really nice for them to acknowledge that their OS is mostly mature and they're really only changing the GUI between releases. Of course, they can't completely act like that because it would kill one of their cash cows, but I could dream of no more MS-Windows installs, and just service pack releases to fix/change the GUI (and therefore ignore them when I don't like a release).

    3. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we still don't want to get spammed and dossed by all of the legacy machines out there.

      Don't worry, Android will quickly pick up the slack so that our spam levels remain high and DDOS threats survive.

    4. Re:Finally by gilleain · · Score: 0

      Funny how someone claiming to have a "superiour" intellect spelled superior wrong.

      Mensa member : says it all really...

    5. Re:Finally by jawtheshark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would it kill their cash cow? Let's take for example Windows XP which is considered mature by now. Don't give me the "security" aspects, as I know it is perfectly possible with modern applications to run XP in Limited User. Software doesn't spoil. Set up a small maintenance team for XP to roll out security patches. Sell XP for 35€ per license and from 2014 on (when the official support stops), charge a 5€/year subscription to fund the maintenance team.

      This would be an instant success, especially in the corporate world. Given the fact that end-user computing power needs have attained a plateau, a simple machine running XP with 2GB RAM is enough. So, I'm pretty sure such a plan would work perfectly well. Heck, if I would still be running Windows, I would have gone for a 5€/year subscription to have support indefinitely.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    6. Re:Finally by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      But she's got one wrong digit and another missing!

    7. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And is a Mensa member. That can't be a good sign. It's like a person who calls themself a badass but pays a monthly membership to the International Club of Tough Guys where they give you tests to reassure your status as a Tough Guy as ordained by the self-proclaimed Tough Guy Council.

      A real badass (or smart person) doesn't give a fuck what people think about their toughness/intelligence, because they know they are badass/smart, can back that up, and would not waste money on such a thing, because it's better spent on leather jackets and cigarettes/geek stuff.

    8. Re:Finally by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...even Microsoft starts to understand that modularity is the way to go while designing complex systems. Moving various operating system components to the user space is just a logical conclusion of the research done during the last four decades.

      MS has understood that longer than you think; in fact, Windows is rather better in that regard than Linux is. Vista in particular was a big turning point with the introduction of the usermode driver framework (UMDF), which put a lot drivers in userspace. (I'm not sure of the details, e.g. whether the UMDF is the only option if you're writing such a driver.) Heck, the first version of NT back in 1990-whatever even put the graphics driver in usermode: if your graphics driver crashed, the system would just restart it. (Graphics drivers were moved into the kernel for performance reasons and remain there now.)

      As for explorer, I don't think it's ever run in kernel mode. It's always been "just another app" from the system's perspective. You can even replace explorer with another desktop environment if you'd like; I remember running Litestep back in Windows 98.

      What this article is about is the user's perspective. The standard desktop is no longer going to be the first thing you see when you turn on or log onto your computer, and you'll have to explicitly start it.

      (And their new "tile" thing will continue to run in userspace.)

    9. Re:Finally by gilleain · · Score: 1

      Hahaha : excellent analogy!

      Also; how do I register with this 'Tough Guy Council' that you mention?

    10. Re:Finally by EvanED · · Score: 1

      OK, looks like I may have been wrong about my comparison with Linux; it seems its support for user-mode drivers is better than I thought. Still, it's not new to Windows either.

    11. Re:Finally by smelch · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm wrong, but explorer.exe has been user space for a while now. This sounds like they're just not loading explorer.exe on startup but instead loading metro.exe. I guess there would be some drivers and such that they may not load, but those wouldn't be user-space either way. You've been able to change the shell in windows for a long time. Even more than that, when the shell crashes, the machine and all the applications stay alive - you just need to restart explorer.exe through the task manager.

      Honestly, this sounds like they're just giving a dumbed down explanation of what it means to ship with two shells, and not some kind of shift in the OS architecture, nor anything new to Microsoft's dev team.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    12. Re:Finally by bonch · · Score: 2

      You're making a big deal out of something trivial and, in my opinion, dumping a bunch of links for karma. You've always been able to change the shell in Windows. Some computer vendors even shipped their own shells for Windows 3.1, replacing Program Manager.

      Windows 8 simply doesn't load the resources for the desktop process if you don't use it, which is logical since this is intended to run on tablets.

    13. Re:Finally by nomel · · Score: 1

      I remember running Half Life 1 as my desktop back with windows 95. It would, how should I put it,
      "If you don't want to do ... 'PC' things, then you don't have to and you're not paying for them in memory, battery life or hardware requirements."

    14. Re:Finally by Misagon · · Score: 1

      Apple seem to be ahead of Microsoft already using capability-based security in the way that apps can be sandboxed in Mac OS X 10.7 ("Lion").
      In a sandboxed app, the app does not have complete access to the file system. The file-requester is part of the system and hands the app access to only those files that the user has selected.
      This reminds me a bit of how access to files was handled in "capdesk".

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    15. Re:Finally by 0racle · · Score: 0

      It's a chick. We're not talking about a delicious turkey dinner here, so of course she's out in left field and making all sorts of mistakes. That's what happens when you talk outside your area of expertise.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    16. Re:Finally by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      My understanding was the printers, gamepads and the like got moved into UMDF, but most hardware wasn't. UMDF is the only option for non-signed drivers, and I've had trouble getting some to work properly (such as the PS3 controller in Windows). You still need to reboot to reload or change a driver.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    17. Re:Finally by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they are just really, really old...and British.

    18. Re:Finally by nschubach · · Score: 2

      (8675309)

      Like so?

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    19. Re:Finally by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Please let XP die.

      It is hard to support as I do not have all the options memorized on XP anymore as I stopped using it 4 years ago. I do not want to write workarounds for IE 7 and delay HTML 5 because XP users are stuck with IE 7 & IE 8 on XP. Firefox is not an option to support anymore anyway.

      It is 10 years old. It is like whinning that you need DOS and Windows 3.0 when XP first came out and refusing to upgrade demanding USB drivers be backported to DOS. That is silly.

      Keep in mind MS loses money and why Balmer is in trouble. Businesses still run XP and Office 2003 and that costs money as sales growth is small and no longer growing quarter by quarter to make Wall Street happy. They need endless growth to fuel the share price which is Balmers job.

      Speaking limits of 2 gigs. I installed Windows 7 on an old laptop that ran Vista/XP and Fedora 13. It has only 2 gigs of ram and let me say it is very very fast with Windows 7. It is not Vista and many newer machines can run Windows 7 with 1 gig of ram as long as they only run Office. XP is not a cash cow if people do not upgrade ever 3 years.

    20. Re:Finally by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      To join the Tough Guy Council you have to beat Chuck Norris. He is allowed to use only his pinky while you can use Jet Li and Jackie Chan.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    21. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We will only be able to tell if we can see the teeth.

    22. Re:Finally by EvanED · · Score: 2

      It's definitely not for everything, at least not yet. This page has a table with a bunch of different kinds of devices and the appropriate API for them. If I counted right (entirely possible I didn't), there are 9 out of 30 rows where UMDF is at least sometimes available; in 3 cases, it's the only choice.

    23. Re:Finally by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      XP is "Good Enough". My current PC is "Good Enough". Reinstalling Windows is a PITA, especially if you, like me, use a lot of small apps.

      Put all of those together and the result is that I do not want to install a new version of Windows even if it worked OK on my current PC (it should) and I could get the new version for free (I can).

      20 years ago it was different. Hardware was quite limited and in turn, the OSs were quite limited. I can do a lot of things with XP thawt I cannot do with 3.0 or DOS. However, all of the features that 7 has (that XP does not have) are not essential -
      prettier desktop (something that I would turn off right after autorun),
      UAC (probably would turn that off too, depending on how often it would annoy me)
      non-sucky 64bit version (could use 2003, also 3.25GB RAM is enough for me for now)
      different UI (so I would have to install ClassicShell)
      IE9 (I don't use IE, other than to install updates)
      DX11 (most games still support 9, so no problem there)

      Did I leave anything out?

    24. Re:Finally by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      why? its great we can fuss with it as a module but shit we havent for 30 years

    25. Re:Finally by mantis2009 · · Score: 1

      This move to modularity is probably overall good, however, does the optional Windows 8 legacy UI remind anyone else of 1995? Remember when you stared the Windows 95 GUI by typing "win.exe"? And, of course, whenever possible, you tried to run applications from DOS without the Windows GUI sucking up performance. There was a (sometimes) significant performance penalty for running Windows "app" on top of DOS.

      If the 1995-esque performance penalties are there for running explorer.exe on top of the new Windows 8 Metro UI, that will be bad news.

    26. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Also, from her profile:

      I am a proud member of MENSA [mensa.org]. I hate sexiest men, who are afraid of intelligent women.

      Judging men on their appearance? So shallow.

    27. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's the sexiest comment I've ever read (#37278500)

    28. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Graphics drivers are in user space again. You'll notice that whenever you buy an Nvidia or ATI card and their amazing drivers crash. Windows Vista/7 magically restarts them, XP dies horribly.

    29. Re:Finally by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Disable Internet Explorer 6 for the non-corporate users and tell the users to use Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari. Most using XP and having a clue do that anyway. This is one of the things I never understood: there is open source software that easily beats the pants off their own software. Notepad++ instead of Notepad, Paint.Net versus Paint, etc, etc, etc... Make it a base system with installable components, and be done with it. It is perfectly possible to keep XP alive, while disabling IE6 for general Internet access.

      An operating systems task is to run programs and manage the resources of the machine. Basically, IE6 shouldn't even be in it. They did that to themselves.

      XP really is the "good enough" for operating systems, and it shows.... That's why I said sell support subscriptions at 5€/year. Given the install base, that would be a highly profitable venture. (For basically keeping XP on life support and eventually all security issues will be fixed and then it will cost nothing to maintain, but bring in enormous amount of money)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    30. Re:Finally by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I dunno, maybe she doesn't want to spread her genes around. (Take that however you want)

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-symmetrical-face-isnt-just-prettier--its-healthier-too-509285.html

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    31. Re:Finally by DrVxD · · Score: 1

      Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)

      Are you sure it's not down to inferior spelling?

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
    32. Re:Finally by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Oh dear. Mensa Babe cannot spell 'superior'.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    33. Re:Finally by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing Win95 and the 3.x (and earlier) series. Unless you're a very very strange person, you didn't get to the Windows 95 desktop through DOS.

    34. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm reading too much into her profile, but I've known plenty of people who think, "People don't like me because I'm smart." When in truth, people don't like them because they're arrogant jerks with few social skills and no idea how limited their knowledge is. So they often end up sounding like idiots, but no one wants to correct them, because they're so unpleasant when someone mentions they've made a mistake.

    35. Re:Finally by webheaded · · Score: 1

      Hah. Another Litestep user. Man, I remember those days. Eventually, I tried out Linux instead of trying to fight with Windows. I still use Windows and Linux, of course, but learning Linux was valuable for my nerdly needs.

      I remember one of the Lightstep themes I used was a Starcraft theme and it even had that green cursor thing. I played (and still do) with a lot of stupid pointless shit when I was younger. I always wanted to do whatever I could to make my computer look cool. Half the time shit was broken but I didn't care as long as it looked cool. Lol.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    36. Re:Finally by EXrider · · Score: 1

      and eventually all security issues will be fixed and then it will cost nothing to maintain

      LOL, seriously!?

      --
      grep -iw skynet /etc/services
    37. Re:Finally by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      Running as a limited user in XP is a complete pain for many things. Want to install an MSI package? You'll probably need to manually elevate msiexec.exe; XP won't do that automatically or give you a "Run as Administrator" option on an MSI file. Want to modify permissions on a file you don't own? Unless you're really good at running cacls from an elevated command line, you'll need to start an elevated Explorer session. Want to use any of the management consoles? Manually invoke MMC.exe elevated, or use elevated Explorer (same goes for a lot of control panel tasks, too). Oh, and be wary of that elevation dialog: on XP, that dialog is running in the normal user session, and if an attacker already has software running in your session they can steal the credentials you enter. In later versions, the Secure Desktop boundary prevents that.

      There's also a lot of apps that expect to be admin all the time. In fact, even with "modern" apps, you'll see plenty of them that expect to be Admin *if they are running on XP* because that's what everybody does on XP, right? XP doesn't have the automatic (and app-transparent) redirection of certain things, like virtualizing writes to HKLM into HKCU instead, or ProgramData (global, essentially /etc) to Application Data (user-writable).

      Then there's other security issues. Lack of ASLR is a big deal - return-oriented programming is so mature these days that DEP (which XP has) without ASLR (which XP lacks and will never have) is just a trivial speed-bump. Lack of Mandatory Integrity Control means that you can't get a really proper sandbox for a browser or similar, and even a limited user (if at medium IL, or without ILs at all) has enough access to install spyware or a spambot. Newer Windows versions support better crypto, and disable old and insecure crypto by default. XP's built-in firewall is very limited compared to Vista/Win7, being one-way-only and lacking the configurability of the later versions.

      Yes, I work in the security field.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    38. Re:Finally by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      ....and yet, I have managed for years to live with a Limited User account for day to day usage. Only logging in as Admin when administrative tasks were at hand. What Vista/7 offers isn't better anyway.

      In fact, even with "modern" apps, you'll see plenty of them that expect to be Admin *if they are running on XP* because that's what everybody does on XP

      Which also means they weren't certified as "Runs on XP", because those require you to run perfectly on Limited User. Oddly enough, open source applications seem to be work pretty well on XP/Limited User. Strange, isn't it?

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    39. Re:Finally by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      I didn't set an upper bound in time ;-) Probably in 2167 or so.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    40. Re:Finally by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "This would be an instant success, especially in the corporate world. Given the fact that end-user computing power needs have attained a plateau, a simple machine running XP with 2GB RAM is enough."

      It's "enough" for a web appliance, but speed is always better.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    41. Re:Finally by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 1

      Now when even Microsoft is going in that direction [...] we can expect Apple and other OS vendors to follow

      What are you talking about? The Finder has been 'just another app' since the start of Mac OS X.

      The App Sandbox has already been mentioned in a prior post.

    42. Re:Finally by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Well increased security is one feature you indirectly linked as a reason to upgrade. :-)

      Many businesses who upgraded to Windows 7 had a decrease in downtime and virus infections. Wizards automatically fix many issues without the need of IT if hardware starts failing. Of course they mainly run IE. Corporate users have to use IE as Asa's big mough destroyed any goodwill left for any other browser. Chrome has the same problem with rapid release dates but does have an update tool at least.

      IE 9 is a modern browser with HTML 5 support that is on par with Firefox 3.6. IE 10 (by Christmas or next spring) will close the gap fully and be as compliant as Chrome and Firefox 7. That is a big reason to upgrade corporate work stations.

    43. Re:Finally by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Not really, when running Limited User, then there is basically not big deal about security. The solution 7 and Vista provide is not really a solution. Businesses who upgrade to 7 and Vista should have locked down desktops and ... surprise, if XP is locked down, it is exactly as secure.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    44. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Graphics drivers are in user space again. You'll notice that whenever you buy an Nvidia or ATI card and their amazing drivers crash. Windows Vista/7 magically restarts them, XP dies horribly.

      Sort of. The graphics drivers are split into 2 pieces: a miniport and core driver. The miniport is a tiny module that runs in the kernel, it does the direct hardware talking like mode switching (blue screen of death) and handling interrupts but all the high level bells and whistles are done in the core driver which runs as a user service. If the core driver fails then Windows will just restart it, though the miniport can still crash everything (very unlikely though given the minimalist design, less code = less bugs).

      This is a feature of WDDM 1.0/1.1 (Windows Display Driver Model), ie. the "my video card drivers don't work properly in Vista" problem where the drivers had to be massively refactored to work with the most-of-it-in-userspace change which took ages and still weren't stable by the time Vista went RTM.

      (Also [GP], UMDF (User Mode Driver Framework) was introduced with SP2 for Windows XP. It's only received proper, relatively common, use in Vista/7 though)

    45. Re:Finally by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Heck, the first version of NT back in 1990-whatever even put the graphics driver in usermode: if your graphics driver crashed, the system would just restart it.

      I actually experience this with ATI drivers on Windows. It's quite useful to be able to keep working even if the graphical system crashes.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
    46. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1995 most computer owners still played around with things such as AUTOEXEC.BAT. When installing Windows 95 you'd keep the same setup, because most must-have programs required MS-DOS. At least until Win 95 would corrupt all the files and magic numbers you got from some friend.
      Win32 was the first platform to have wide support from people outside of MS.
      So called advanced users* would keep using MS-DOS as their main OS for many years for games and specific applications that accessed the hardware directly, while leaving windows for newer games and the ubiquitous Microsoft Office suite.

      (*) They tried out Linux once, but all they got was:

      # dir
      ?
      # help
      ?
      *kernel-panic*

    47. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working in the "security field" and focusing on Windows is pretty much teh lulz.

      I take it by meaning "I work on anti-viruses" you think you work in the security field?

    48. Re:Finally by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Working in the "security field" and focusing on Windows is pretty much teh lulz.

      Working in the "medical field" and focusing on sick people is pretty much teh lulz.

  3. sort of like? by v1 · · Score: 1

    quitting the Finder on a Mac, since Finder runs as a (rather persistent) application.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:sort of like? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: So does Windows Explorer, which is responsible for generating the desktop, all "My Computer" windows (which are just Explorer windows without the sidebar), and the task bar.

      But that being said, I think this is a little less like quitting Explorer and a bit closer to quitting one's entire window manager.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:sort of like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does Windows Explorer, .......... and the task bar.

      I don't know, does it? ;) I'm pretty sure you forgot to actually ask the question there.

    3. Re:sort of like? by smelch · · Score: 2

      Maybe I'm wrong, but when explorer.exe is closed, you don't see ANY windows until it is restarted. When it is restarted, everything is back in its rightful place though, so I'm not sure how far away explorer.exe is from the actual window manager since windows is... weird... about the distinction between a window manager, the shell and the window system.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    4. Re:sort of like? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm wrong, but when explorer.exe is closed, you don't see ANY windows until it is restarted.

      You're wrong.

      All your windows stay open (and accessible through, e.g., alt-tab).

    5. Re:sort of like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not entirely correct. Not all windows require explorer.exe.

    6. Re:sort of like? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      No, the desktop disappears but your windows are fine if Explorer dies, unless they're Explorer windows that piggybacked on the original Explorer process. If you minimize a window it has nowhere to go and just disappears (alt-tab still works though). When Explorer starts back up it restores the desktop and repopulates the taskbar, but not without its glitches (clicking on the taskbar button to minimize is glitched, and the icons in the system tray don't always come back).

    7. Re:sort of like? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      As you've already been informed, Explorer is equivalent to Gnome's Nautilus + panels. It does the desktop, file-managing, and the task bar (though it can do additional bars, as of Windows 98 and NT4 SP3.) Actual window management (the part that draws borders) is done by GDI and its manifold successors, directly by the system, though if you minimize windows while explorer isn't running, they'll stack up in the bottom-left corner as compact titlebars, in a way that behaves like Windows 3.1's iconification.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    8. Re:sort of like? by darkgrayknight · · Score: 0

      You'll see windows for various applications even after closing explorer.exe, and you can actually still open (via file->open in an application's window) an explorer file manager window. So the window manager isn't exactly explorer.exe.

    9. Re:sort of like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are actually wrong, when you close explorer.exe the windows are untouched. The window manager is dwm.exe.

    10. Re:sort of like? by Ark42 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it's possible to change Windows to not use Explorer.exe anymore too, just edit the "Shell" entry at:
      HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon

      You can probably set that to load Firefox as your shell instead, and them use other group policies to prevent other applications from being started (from ctrl+shift+ESC - Task Manager), for a kiosk-mode for example.

    11. Re:sort of like? by Ark42 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to reply to myself, but: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/143164

    12. Re:sort of like? by smelch · · Score: 1

      Damn, should have closed explorer.exe before opening my big mouth. As of Windows Vista, dwm.exe is the window manager. So it seems Windows 8 will ship with alternate versions of explorer.exe and dwm.exe, something like metro.exe and mwm.exe. Of course since Vista and 7 won't allow you to close dwm.exe, there is likely a whole slew of stuff underneath that will likely need to be re-architected to allow for such a thing to happen.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    13. Re:sort of like? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      The window manager is dwm.exe.

      Not under XP it wasn't.

    14. Re:sort of like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      explorer.exe is just the shell components. The window manager is separate. If you kill explorer.exe, your desktop icons, folder windows, and taskbar disappear but other windows remain.

    15. Re:sort of like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      individual applications will show up.. only explorer windows will close..this assumes you haven't set it to launch new windows as separate processes.

    16. Re:sort of like? by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 1

      Of course since Vista and 7 won't allow you to close dwm.exe, there is likely a whole slew of stuff underneath that will likely need to be re-architected to allow for such a thing to happen.

      You can, but it immediately restarts. Doesn't look like changing that would require any change to the architecture.

      --
      (+1, Disagree)
    17. Re:sort of like? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      If you minimize a window it has nowhere to go and just disappears (alt-tab still works though).

      Minimized windows always go to the same place regardless of whether Explorer is running...they are moved so that their upper left corner is at a very negative coordinate.

      Since the upper left of the upper left-most screen is at (0,0) and the "minimized" windows are moved to something like (-16000,-16000), they aren't visible on any display. The only thing that Explorer does with minimized windows is notice that it happened and optionally draw the animation.

    18. Re:sort of like? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Fine, "if you minimize a window it just disappears as there's no shell to show you that it's minimized".

    19. Re:sort of like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try this:
      1. start some programs, such as notepad.
      2. start task manager
      3. kill "explore" from the task manager.

      all running program are STILL FINE, there windows are still there, just your desktop and task bar will be gone.
      You can even restart explore.exe from the task manager->run.

    20. Re:sort of like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong about this one.

      Open Task Manager and kill the explorer.exe process. All of your explorer windows and the task bar will disappear. Application windows will hum along just fine. So will Task Manager.

      Now click on the Applications tab of the Task Manager, click the New Task... button and run explorer.exe to get your "desktop" back.

      What this article describes is a low-level basic interface that runs in the window manager without having a shell loaded. It likely can't do anything but execute other apps. This means that there's no file management or scriptability, basically. Those are two things the hurr-durr users can do without most of the time. And in fact, they don't "get it" and cause support desk headaches with those two items 99% of the time. We can just start calling it "derp mode" and make fun of the future stupid users now.

      Everyone that understands how stuff works will have their machines auto-scripted to show the desktop within minutes after installation. As a bonus, it will eventually confuse and rebuff the stupid users and keep them out of your "amazing machine".

      If you couldn't tell, I feel no pity for the using classes. It's usually like dealing with an armed toddler, and I'll be quite happy to be rid of it.

    21. Re:sort of like? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are in fact wrong. Very astute of you to guess it. :-)

      Open the Start menu.
      Hold the Ctrl+Shift keys.
      Right-click the menu (not an item, the menu itself).
      Select "Exit Explorer"

      Note that your windows stick around (except possibly Explorer file-browser windows, unless you've set it up so each opens in its own process). Window management gets a little funky without a Taskbar - and Alt+Tab works, but only in a pretty primitive way - but the computer is pretty much still usable.

      Oh, and to restart Explorer? Ctrl+Shift+Esc to bring up Task Manager. File -> New task -> "explorer".

      The window system has almost nothing to do with Explorer. I believe it's handled by win32k.sys, a very low-level DLL. It's certainly no part of Explorer.
      The window manager is part of Explorer, but there's fall-back behavior as well. You can still move and resize and focus and minimize windows without Explorer, though it's messier and more primitive.
      The shell is all Explorer - the launcher (Start menu), the program switcher (taskbar), the file manager (Windows Explorer) and more of the standard shell features are all part of Explorer. However, you can replace Explorer with a different shell if you want; Windows doesn't require that you use Explorer, it's just the default.

      Hope that helps.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    22. Re:sort of like? by fnj · · Score: 1

      It's been a long time since I used Windows (and my sense of well being is a lot better for it), but to the best of my knowledge Explorer never had anything to do with displaying general application windows. In NT 3.1 and 3.51 (the best-designed versions of Windows IMHO), there wasn't even any Explorer at all, and the general application windows displayed and were managed just fine. I'm pretty sure that even in NT 4.0, Windows 2000, and XP, during shutdown I have observed Windows that were started in a context other than currently-logged-in user remaining open for longer than Explorer.

      In any version of Windows I had any experience with, up through XP, you could definitely run an alternate shell to Explorer and start applications, for example from the command line, and graphical apps would display fine. OK, maybe I didn't actually try it in XP, but I definitely did in 4.0.

    23. Re:sort of like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You see all the windows, and even alt-tab works. You don't see the taskbar, and you don't see your desktop icons.

    24. Re:sort of like? by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      Explorer isn't the window manager, although it does have some integration to make minimised windows appear within the task bar. The window manager largely runs as a library within the application (USER32.DLL). Windows 2000 added the feature that lets you force minimisation or kill the window's owner if it doesn't process window management messages quickly. (I don't know what component or process handles this.) More recently DWM.EXE was introduced to handle some window management and particularly compositing.

  4. Explorer.exe? by Crizzam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't imagine they could do away with much more than explorer and maybe a hand full of DLL's. So, basically, we are given an extra step to load our desktops... probably while we are inundated with news feeds or advertisements. I wonder which HKey will turn this off.

    1. Re:Explorer.exe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It will probably be HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\ with a DWORD named "IDontHaveAFuckingTablet" set to 1.

    2. Re:Explorer.exe? by bonch · · Score: 1

      They're just making the desktop launch on demand, which is what they need to do to run on tablets. Your comment about news feeds and advertisements doesn't seem to actually be based on anything.

    3. Re:Explorer.exe? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      I'm sure they'll probably use the same key they're using now to set Explorer.exe as the default shell for Windows. You can change this now, if you want to set up a web kiosk, for example.

    4. Re:Explorer.exe? by cyberstealth1024 · · Score: 1

      It would probably be per-user, so HKCU, but yeah

    5. Re:Explorer.exe? by Enderandrew · · Score: 2

      This is the problem. We're being asked to take one more step to achieve the same task, and this is called progress. People still have Windows 7 as a massively better UI than XP, and while I love Aero Peek and the Task Bar, most of the Vista regressions remain. For so many tasks in Windows I'm expected to perform an extra step or two.

      Their UI keeps getting less and less efficient, though it looks better. And yet people praise it.

      And from what I'm hearing, Alt-Tab has been changed significantly in Windows 8 because of the Metro interface, making it harder to switch between Windows in the Desktop Tile.

      Microsoft doesn't get it, and sadly Apple is screwing this up as well now. Microsoft had tablets, and a mobile OS that both failed because they tried putting forcing a desktop paradigm on small handheld devices. Apple created a mobile OS designed for mobile form factors, and touch interface. Since that is massively popular, both Apple and Microsoft are trying to force mobile/touch concepts into the desktop where they don't belong.

      Make the design appropriate for the form factor and interface.

      Linux gets this right, where the same OS can just swap graphical shells for the task.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:Explorer.exe? by HBI · · Score: 1

      Actually, they'd probably do both, ala the Internet Settings.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    7. Re:Explorer.exe? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      While many people will want to boot directly to the desktop, I think it is probably a lot fewer than you think. This will be particularly true if/when touch screen monitors become popular. If I work in Eclipse all day, I don't necessarily need a full desktop, even though I am doing real programming. For most people, they would be happy to use their desktop as a fixed place tablet but wouldn't normally do that since they don't want to give up the occasional full desktop usability.

    8. Re:Explorer.exe? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Linux gets this right, where the same OS can just swap graphical shells for the task.

      Ummm... you just described Windows 8. I would ask if you RTFA but obviously you didn't.

    9. Re:Explorer.exe? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      It isn't the same. The Metro shell still runs, with the Windows Desktop as a tile inside that shell. So application switching is still handled by Metro for instance.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    10. Re:Explorer.exe? by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 0

      and sadly Apple is screwing this up as well now.

      They do? I haven't noticed. Running Lion.

      Apple created a mobile OS designed for mobile form factors, and touch interface. Since that is massively popular, both Apple and Microsoft are trying to force mobile/touch concepts into the desktop where they don't belong.

      Care to give an example for Apple trying to force mobile/touch concepts into the desktop?

      BTW: The Magic Trackpad is really nice. I use it in addition to my (Logitech) mouse. For some things gestures are just faster.

    11. Re:Explorer.exe? by fnj · · Score: 1

      It's no more progress for those of us running REAL computers (not those handheld toys), than Gnome3 (ugh!) was progress compared to Gnome2. So, actually, there are signs that the heart of linux-desktop does not "get it" either.

    12. Re:Explorer.exe? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      The KDE devs have made it trivial to change shells for different interfaces or different tasks.

      You can run a netbook shell on a netbook, a tablet shell on your tablet, a desktop shell on your desktop, etc.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    13. Re:Explorer.exe? by fnj · · Score: 2

      I don't have anything much against KDE4 as shipped (tweaked the way I like it of course), other than it being pretty fat, which is not a show stopper. It's completely missing any viable counterparts to a number of Gnome2 panel applets that I happen to like a great deal. It's definitely night and day orders of magnitude better than the ghastly Gnome3. It's just that I prefer Gnome2 on balance. If I just keep using RHEL6 (actually I use a clone of RHEL6), I won't have to decide what to do in a world without Gnome2 until at least 2017.

    14. Re:Explorer.exe? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Gnome 2 might get forked.

      What panel applets do you use in Gnome that aren't available in KDE? KDE has the ability to pull new applets/plasmoids from the web. So if it isn't there out of the box, it may still exist.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    15. Re:Explorer.exe? by fnj · · Score: 1

      I depend on (1) the drawer, (2) mini commander, (3) the weather applet, (4) the system monitor, (5) sensors, (6) CPU scaling.

      I know some have counterparts that are vaguely similar, but in several instances not good enough. I could LIVE without mini commander (most Gnome distros do; they simply don't include it). I was able to fashion a side bar with app starters that was enough like the drawer to get the job done, though not as well. I couldn't find anything remotely similar to the others, though. I want a simple numerical weather temperature readout that expands into a compact but full featured readout WITH RADAR DISPLAY when you click on it. I want a simple numerical CPU temperature and fan RPM readout. I want a simple numerical CPU GHz readout. I want these on a top bar, dammit, separate from the taskbar on the bottom. Putting the stuff on the desktop is a non-starter. The first thing I have to do on a new KDE4 desktop is turn of that awful plasma desktop and change it to a simple desktop with shortcuts just like Gnome2.

      I'm pretty hard to please. If I had the ambition and the talent, I would cram the stuff into the KDE codebase. I have a Fedora15 KDE4 desktop, not on my main PC, and am trying to get used to some compromise that is "good enough" (though I don't think I should have to). OK, I can run "watch sensors" on a Konsole tab, even though that is not nearly as good as having them constantly visible on a top bar. I know about Alt-F2 and it is probably good enough, but not as convenient as having mini commander right there on the top bar all the time. I haven't found anything even remotely comparable to Gnome weather. The KDE sensors applet I found was just awful. And so it goes.

      I used to use KDE3 as a preference to Gnome, and I didn't have a lot of those applets then. But after becoming used to "the perfect tweaked Gnome2," it's not easy accepting less.

      P.S. - I have always used Konsole and Kate even under Gnome2. They have always been light years ahead of their Gnome counterparts.

    16. Re:Explorer.exe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      both Apple and Microsoft are trying to force mobile/touch concepts into the desktop where they don't belong.

      I think there's a huge distinction between reviving a failed interface paradigm (desktop touch) and using a gesture-recognizing touchpad for shortcuts.

      One involves making your entire OS friendly to the low precision of fingers, with big buttons and fonts and lots of padding, and reviving a failed 1980's interface paradigm, the other involves developers being aware that a subset of their users can now perform gestures on a fairly mundane piece of hardware with proven ergonomics that they probably already own or would have purchased anyway.

      OS X remains firmly pointer based, Windows 8 - not so much.

  5. It already is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since the dawn of time, the Windows "Desktop" has always been an application. Before 95 it was progman. After, it was explorer. You've always been able to switch to a new shell with ini file or registry modifications.

    1. Re:It already is by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I believe the new thing is that now it doesn't need to be running at all, only on-demand. If I just shut down explorer.exe in XP and try to go about launching applications and trying to get the OS to do various things, I think some things will fail since the shell isn't running. In fact, it's pretty hard to do anything at all in XP without the shell running.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:It already is by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 1

      If I just shut down explorer.exe in XP and try to go about launching applications and trying to get the OS to do various things, I think some things will fail since the shell isn't running.

      Have you tried? Sure, launching things from the Task Manager is inconvenient, but nothing really breaks because Explorer isn't running.

    3. Re:It already is by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      you never gave litestep a spin? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiteStep

      and let me make a prediction about windows 8. the explorer will be there, underneath, running 100% of time. it's just that by default they'll launch you into the revamped windows media center big screen retarded ui, unless you at install time specify that fuck no.

      you see, they don't have new ideas about driver architechture or stuff like that. so it's come to that, and windows 7 sold so well and osx is doing the fullscreen-let's-go-back-to-dos dance too so they're just running with that and bumping the number. incidentally there's no reason why you couldn't do "windows 8" on windows 7.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:It already is by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Well you can run task manager and have access to the run command... but anything that relies on explorer.exe will fail if it isn't running.... Some things however don't mind explorer.exe being gone and others do... So your mileage may vary...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    5. Re:It already is by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Ever seen anyone do it?

    6. Re:It already is by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I have tried (but this was circa 2001) and I remember some things did not work... mainly games. It had something to do with DirectX. We were trying to setup login for a coffee shop/game center so the users could select a login named after the application and go straight to the game without loading Explorer. I remember Half-life (among others) hated us for doing it. We ended up scrapping that, setting up an rsync over the network for user saves and imaging the PCs for regular ghosting. I haven't tried in recent versions of Windows though.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    7. Re:It already is by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Ever seen anyone do it?

      Yes, but only about three times in 15 years.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    8. Re:It already is by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      By 95, at least, it was possible to edit a copy of explorer.exe, and since you couldn't delete the copy in the windows directory while it was running, you could instead save your edited version into the root directory where it would be found first next time you booted. I remember using one of the common 16 bit editors of that time and replacing the BMP that made the left border on the start menu with a custom one. Of course, if you screwed up someting, you had to boot to dos to delete your version. Some of us learned to change shell to something like lightstep so we could more safely hack explorer. That's far from the dawn of time still... I can't possibly be .... Oh Hell, you kids get off of my lawn!

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    9. Re:It already is by archen · · Score: 1

      I wondered that myself and I have switched from explorer to LiteStep before. It worked fine, but wasn't the sort of setup I wanted.

    10. Re:It already is by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I didn't consider the task manager (oddly enough). I was thinking about using hotkeys to bring up the Run dialog, and I believe that the shell is what controls the hotkeys.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re:It already is by fnj · · Score: 1

      Actually, before Explorer it wasn't anything besides the integrated window manager. It definitely wasn't Progman. When you started up, you got your full display without running Progman at all, and Progman wasn't in the task list. If cmd.exe was in your autostart list, you could then run apps from the command line and they worked fine.

    12. Re:It already is by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      You're correct; all of the Start-button hotkeys are captured and executed by Explorer. Ctrl-Alt-Del and Ctrl-Shift-Esc are not, and work regardless of whether Explorer is running.

    13. Re:It already is by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      When you started up, you got your full display without running Progman at all, and Progman wasn't in the task list.

      I don't understand. By "full display" do you mean wallpaper? There weren't desktop icons or a taskbar in Windows 3.1, so that's about all there was: a wallpaper. Progman was basically the same as Explorer; about the only difference was that it didn't run full-screen and it didn't track open applications with a task bar.

  6. Old news by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

    Explorer has always been "just an app". You can edit system.ini and replace 'SHELL=explorer.exe' with any other application. e.g. LiteStep, a MAME front end, XBMC, etc.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Old news by gmueckl · · Score: 1

      system.what? system.ini is gone for more than a decade now. I have not seen any viable shell replacement for Windows in the last couple of years, only half-baked unfinished solutions so far.

      --
      http://www.moonlight3d.eu/
    2. Re:Old news by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Explorer has always been "just an app". You can edit system.ini and replace 'SHELL=explorer.exe' with any other application. e.g. LiteStep, a MAME front end, XBMC, etc.

      I remember doing just this on a win98 system a while ago when something became corrupted with explorer.exe. I changed it to progman.exe, the program manager from windows 3, which I was surprised to find still existed in windows 98.

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
    3. Re:Old news by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      I used trillian.exe for my shell for a while, for a similar reason...

    4. Re:Old news by 49152 · · Score: 1

      "system.what? system.ini is gone for more than a decade now."

      HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon\ -> shell (REG_SZ, create if needed).

      Default is explorer.exe but you can replace it with any executable you want. (Have not tested this personally since the XP days, but the key is still there in Win7).

      "I have not seen any viable shell replacement for Windows in the last couple of years, only half-baked unfinished solutions so far."

      True enough.

    5. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Default is explorer.exe but you can replace it with any executable you want. (Have not tested this personally since the XP days, but the key is still there in Win7).

      That reg key is a virus paradise; a bit lame, but still used often for auto-loading an executable with the regular shell.
      FYI: replacing the shell value still works, but it's all too easy to launch the classic shell.

      "I have not seen any viable shell replacement for Windows in the last couple of years, only half-baked unfinished solutions so far."
      True enough.

      MS never made this a stable medium for programming. The foundations change too often and the market is too small for alternate shells; people ended up making and using custom themes and that too is a small market.

    6. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had pretty good success with LiteStep. Modular, lots of different styles, customisable, etc. etc.

  7. Customizable by milbournosphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Metro-style UI — the one inspired by Windows Phone 7's tile-based design — will be the first to show up when a user boots a device.

    I sure hope it'll be easy to turn that off. It makes sense on a consumer box with a touchscreen, but for my work station, I have no intention of using the Metro UI.

    1. Re:Customizable by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Did you not read the summary? Yes, you will have a choice.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Customizable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing they'll let you set it up to go to the traditional desktop by default.

      You can still run a "Classic" desktop - i.e. Windows 95 with a few minor enhancements - in 7. Backwards-compatibility in interfaces has always been a feature. I don't see them abandoning that principle now.

    3. Re:Customizable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect the net will be lousy with "here's how to make Windows 8 act the way you want it to" tips well before it ships.

      I've watched the videos and read all the online stuff about Win8, and I have no freaking idea how MS convinced themselves that this is a good idea. Treating tablets and laptops/desktops the same way is beyond stupid.

      I've long said that Vista was the reincarnation of Win98 ME. I'm now convinced that Win8 will be the equivalent of MS Bob, but all the more horrible for being the main OS and not an add-on package.

    4. Re:Customizable by milbournosphere · · Score: 1

      Doh! No, guess that serves me right for quickly glancing at TFS while trying to get work done.

    5. Re:Customizable by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I've watched the videos and read all the online stuff about Win8, and I have no freaking idea how MS convinced themselves that this is a good idea. Treating tablets and laptops/desktops the same way is beyond stupid.

      Probably the same way that Gnome and Ubuntu did.

      There seems to be a very potent Stupidification Virus going around the IT world at the moment.

    6. Re:Customizable by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      No, you don't have a choice. The desktop is now a tile inside the Metro interface.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    7. Re:Customizable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft ALWAYS gives you a choice... "do as we say or don't use a computer at all.... har har har har har!!!"

    8. Re:Customizable by mcswell · · Score: 1

      What? Huh?

    9. Re:Customizable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft ALWAYS gives you a choice... "do as we say or don't use a computer at all.... har har har har har!!!"

      You're confusing Microsoft with Apple.

    10. Re:Customizable by jbplou · · Score: 1

      It makes sense for nothing but killing your flagship product. They must have Oedipus in marketing now, let's replace the worlds most well known user interface and replace it with one from a very unpopular phone O/S

  8. Choose GUI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally, I think a more elegant approach would be to allow the user to choose the GUI style via a menu/toggle on the login screen a la the Unix world.

    1. Re:Choose GUI by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should use unix!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  9. Hum....how can I do this already? by bigredradio · · Score: 1

    This is an interesting idea that should not be too difficult to implement in a Linux Distro. How often do I boot up my laptop just to check email or look up something on google? Having an option to login quickly in a kiosk-mode with only a limited number of apps or full desktop might come in handy. Anyone set something like this up already? Pros - Cons? Probably just have something like TWM as well as my trusty XFCE-4 as an option at login.

    1. Re:Hum....how can I do this already? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Having an option to login quickly in a kiosk-mode with only a limited number of apps or full desktop might come in handy.

      Considering that Gnome 2 takes about five seconds to log in since I uninstalled all that zeitgeist crap and deleted the thumbnails directory on shutdown, I'm not sure how much faster you could make it.

      Oh, but yeah, I guess Gnome 3 is going to take as long as KDE to load all its crap before I can do anything useful.

    2. Re:Hum....how can I do this already? by armanox · · Score: 1

      I did that for a while on my old laptop, and found myself creating a script to switch to full desktop (I did FVWM -> KDE3) if I decided I wanted more...eye candy? Anyway, it was great for fast startup. (I also for a while had it auto-login to my fvwm setup).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    3. Re:Hum....how can I do this already? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Turn off [xgk]dm and just boot to a console.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Hum....how can I do this already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 seconds. That is the boot-time of my Amiga from pressing the power switch to working desktop environment. (Yes, that includes the time for loading an alternative "ROM" into memory because I don't like the original one. It also includes scanning for hardware changes and all that yadda yadda that people bring up as an excuse to why my PC must take forever to load.)

      5 seconds is a very noticable time for a computer to start. 1 second feels like a reachable goal but that requires that desktop programmers don't consider 5 seconds for a single component to be anything close to acceptable.
      It might also be necessary to avoid doing things that some people consider to be good programming habits, like storing the desktop system in a gazillion files spread out on the disk.

    5. Re:Hum....how can I do this already? by fnj · · Score: 1

      Or you could just use Xfce or LXDE, awesome, enlightenment, Fluxbox, IceWM, FVWM, or ...

      Too primitive for me, but they're FAST loading.

  10. I smell failure... by TheBrutalTruth · · Score: 1
    No, I have no love for M$ - but I understand the importance of it (software) in the business and consumer market. But the 1st thing that comes to mind in the Enterprise is:

    1. Business will not deploy it

    2. Only tablet or touch screen use in the consumer market

    Why? Business will lockout the "Metro" interface, and just load the "desktop app" - at processor & memory cost - which in an Enterprise = lotsa $$

    The consumer who still thinks of a PC a a traditional Windows desktop w/ traditional menus and apps will be turned off, because their new shiny toy will get crap performance w/o TONs of memory and horsepower. Because they'll want a desktop.

    Dedicated OS's for dedicated devices guys - it just works better. less code = more harmony.

    --
    Enlightenment is a pipe dream. So where's the pipe?
    1. Re:I smell failure... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Business might not deploy it, but so what? If there aren't loading the code a all, then it's fine.

      " less code = more harmony."
      well, since you boiled your 'argument' down to a simple statement it must be true.

      "Fewer code bases to track = more harmony."

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I smell failure... by earls · · Score: 1

      The question is if they're not going to load the interface at all, why migrate from Windows 7 to Windows 7?

    3. Re:I smell failure... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      They aren't holding the "desktop app" constant. They demo'd several changes. And I'm certain the majority of changes will be under the hood.

      You can observe everybody focusing on the UI because that's all that can be communicated in a screenshot, and then they say things like "why are you only changing the UI, why don't you fix the OS". This isn't limited to Microsoft.

  11. Just an app? Fantastic! by geekmux · · Score: 0

    "'Essentially, you can think of the Windows desktop as just another app.'"

    Wow, that's great news! So, when does the app hit the iTunes store?

    (Don't lie, you know damn well this is how the average uneducated user is going to respond to this notion.)

  12. welcome to 1988 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I have an o/s that boots to a command line?
    And then run metro.com (the small client) or win.com (the big client)?

    1. Re:welcome to 1988 by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu+wine?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:welcome to 1988 by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Can I have an o/s that boots to a command line?

      Well sure, it just ain't going to be windows.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:welcome to 1988 by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Windows Server 2008 has a head-less version, but I haven't tried it yet. Apparently you need to do everything with Powershell, and I haven't bothered learning it yet.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  13. back to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the very first Windows. Just think where Microsoft might be right now if they had maintained clear architectural boundaries between the operating system kernel and the UI. The browser is part of the operating system?! Really?! Well, at least they're starting to figure things out. Maybe someday they'll decide to maintain a clean separation between the rest of their products as well. But I doubt it.

    1. Re:back to the future by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Just think where you might be if you had any intelligence.

    2. Re:back to the future by mikael · · Score: 2

      In the days of MSDOS and the first 8086, there wasn't any hardware based security. About the only multitasking was the CLI/SLI (clear interrupt mask/set interrupt mask) and the 18.2Hz interrupt. There wasn't even any boundary between system files and users files except for a few bits in the directory structure for read-only, hidden and system files.

      DosBox recreates the MSDOS environment perfectly. Every service device driver depended on interrupts. Int 10h for this, Int 31h for that.

      Want mouse support? Install MSDOS v3.1 to get those.
      Need IPX support? Install packet drivers for that.
      Need Adlib/Sound-Blaster support? Install sound drivers for that. Want higher resolution SVGA modes. Update your BIOS/graphics card for those.

      To run Windows, required rendering GUI widgets all the different framebuffer sizes and formats in software (CGA- 4 color, EGA - 16 color, VGA EGA+ 256 color, SVGA: VGA+16-bit/24-bit color). Hardware accelerated blitting was a luxury then, let alone texture mapping. Having clock speeds less that 33MHz didn't help with the GUI desktop rendering.

      Writing an application back then involved making your own interrupt calls to the mouse, audio, keyboard and display drivers, to set up and shut down these services.

      First edition of Windows just slapped on a set of GUI calls to set these up consistently between different hardware setups. It was a layer of bureaucracy but it simplified the process of writing applications so that users just had to worry about GUI design and events.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:back to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think where Microsoft might be right now if they had maintained clear architectural boundaries between the operating system kernel and the UI.

      Yeah, just imagine that they had done something they always have. Wow.

  14. Considering the trend of boxing in by ZeroSerenity · · Score: 2

    this sounds like a good choice. Granted, people like me may be up in rage because of the unfamilar feeling, but the fewer calls I get because people totally screwed up their own rig is a good thing in my book. As the first major desktop/notebook/netbook/whatever OS to embrace this idea (as in it's not a phone or PDA), it could verywell lead how it's really supposed to be done. Just please tell me I don't have to jailbreak my own computer...

    --
    For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
  15. Move Along by sehlat · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's not the Droid I was looking for.

  16. Pimp my desktop by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    The difference is making it easy for common users to switch desktops, or even understand such a thing is possible. Linux users are familiar with switching desktops and the numerous ways options available. Most of us have toyed with Gnome and KDE and XFCE, E17, Nextstep, ect....

    If Windows users had an option drop down in their login screen I wonder how many would replace their desktop environment. How long will it be before the common windows user installs a OSX clone? (not just a theme, but a true work-alike desktop)

    1. Re:Pimp my desktop by LocalH · · Score: 2

      Never, as Apple would likely sue.

      --
      FC Closer
    2. Re:Pimp my desktop by tycoex · · Score: 1

      I have an OSX clone on my crappy old Vista laptop using this program: http://www.truelaunchbar.com/

      It's fun to mess with, but I've kept my Windows 7 desktop normal because I like Windows 7 and see no reason to change the UI as I believe it's quite good. My laptop is just for effing around with so I didn't mind messing it up.

  17. Oh gawd by jasmusic · · Score: 0

    Sinofsky is a fucking dipshit and he's overreaching. You couldn't get away with this on Linux because they would just jettison your dumb Metro window manager like used toilet paper. When Metro grows dated (almost there already) they're hardcoded and fucked. XAML & C++, eh? Can anyone see the obvious retardation? If you guessed that C++ doesn't have reflection and XAML is based entirely on reflection, you are correct. IThis, IThat, death-by-COM, surely that was what we were all clamoring for instead of an optimized WPF right?

    1. Re:Oh gawd by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If you guessed that C++ doesn't have reflection and XAML is based entirely on reflection, you are correct.

      C++ doesn't have reflection out of the box, but it's not hard to make tools that add it for you. Qt uses something like that, albeit with some extra verbiage. But it is possible to do better.

    2. Re:Oh gawd by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It seems from what I know about Win 8, it is highly ambitious. Works the same in ARM and Intel. Works the same in table or desktop. The last I remember that they did this, they made Windows Mobile look like Windows but didn't really function the same. As such MS never optimized touch. I don't feel confident that they can pull this off.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Oh gawd by exomondo · · Score: 1

      The last I remember that they did this, they made Windows Mobile look like Windows but didn't really function the same.

      This time it's the other way around, the backend is the same and it's just the presentation layer that can be different based on the device (whether it's a tablet or a desktop/laptop).

    4. Re:Oh gawd by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      How can the backend be the same when they are running either ARM or x86 instruction sets, desktop and tablet hardware. That's why it is highly ambitious. The backends will be different but the frontend will be the same according to MS.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Oh gawd by exomondo · · Score: 1

      How can the backend be the same when they are running either ARM or x86 instruction sets, desktop and tablet hardware.

      It depends on what you determine to be the backend, i'm referring to the CLR in that any .net applications are going to run the same whether it's x86 or ARM, unlike WinMo.

    6. Re:Oh gawd by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you determine to be the backend,

      What most people refer to the backend is the whole OS at the base level. At the base level, Windows, OS X, Unix, or whatever OS is compiled in a language. That compilation had nothing to do with CLR as CLR deals with runtime not compilation. Most of the time it is C and it will vary depending on the hardware used. ARM and x86 instruction sets are not the same. I don't know anyone who considers CLR to be the backend. At best it's the middle layer.

      i'm referring to the CLR in that any .net applications are going to run the same whether it's x86 or ARM, unlike WinMo.

      Why would you think that? Nothing runs exactly the same today even if it was written based on .NET platforms. That's why there's a .NET Compact which has different functionality for mobile devices than the full .NET. This why I don't have much faith that MS can pull it off.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:Oh gawd by exomondo · · Score: 1

      What most people refer to the backend is the whole OS at the base level.

      .Net applications don't care about that, they only go as far back as the CLR, which should be obvious given that x86 and ARM are different architectures so the whole OS at the base level simply cannot be the same and that as far as a .Net application is concerned anything beneath the CLR is irrelevant. I'm sorry if the use of 'backend' confused you but you can see if you use your definition it clearly doesn't make sense in this context, anyway that's neither here nor there in this discussion, you know what im talking about now?

      Most of the time it is C and it will vary depending on the hardware used. ARM and x86 instruction sets are not the same. I don't know anyone who considers CLR to be the backend. At best it's the middle layer.

      From an application perspective it is, if you write a .Net application the CLR is as far back as you need to be concerned with.

      i'm referring to the CLR in that any .net applications are going to run the same whether it's x86 or ARM, unlike WinMo.

      Why would you think that?

      Because it's their goal, they've stated they want the same experience whether it's ARM or x86 and obviously from a .Net perspective that shouldn't matter. What makes you think that can't work?

      That's why there's a .NET Compact which has different functionality for mobile devices than the full .NET.

      But this isn't going to be the Compat framework, it's the full .Net framework with an x86 CLR and an ARM CLR.


      In any case the semantics are irrelevant, i'm fairly sure you understand what i'm talking about now, the fact is their goal is to have a CLR for x86 and ARM so with .Net applications running on the CLR and the platform beneath that is irrelevant. So as far as the application is concerned, as far back as it goes (the CLR) the system is the same and it's the GUI layer that may be different on different devices as opposed to WinMo where they tried to make it look similar to the desktop but in fact the system that the application interacted with was very different.

    8. Re:Oh gawd by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      .Net applications don't care about that, they only go as far back as the CLR, which should be obvious given that x86 and ARM are different architectures so the whole OS at the base level simply cannot be the same and that as far as a .Net application is concerned anything beneath the CLR is irrelevant. I'm sorry if the use of 'backend' confused you but you can see if you use your definition it clearly doesn't make sense in this context, anyway that's neither here nor there in this discussion, you know what im talking about now?

      It's clear you have no idea what backends or middle layers or what an OS is. Windows is an OS. .NET is a application development platform with CLR as the middle layer. It's the same as Java. Java has to run on an OS at some level whether that OS is Unix, Windows, OS X, Linux, whatever. MS has proposed Windows 8 as an OS will run equally same on ARM or x86 at the low level. That seems highly ambitious.

      Because it's their goal, they've stated they want the same experience whether it's ARM or x86 and obviously from a .Net perspective that shouldn't matter. What makes you think that can't work?

      Can you do everything you can with your mobile device as your desktop? Nothingwithstanding the software differences, there are major hardware differences.

      From an application perspective it is, if you write a .Net application the CLR is as far back as you need to be concerned with.

      We are not talking about applications. We are talking about Windows itself. Consider that currently no version of Windows OS runs on .NET but uses .NET as the application development not system development. Windows OS is written in C/C++ with some Assembly. C++ is different based on the hardware that is being used. Assembly is vastly different based on the hardware. If that's not clear to you, you need to do more research on OS development vs application development. The main reason Windows or any OS is not written on middle layer or application layer is that the overhead would be high. Linux and Unix are written in C for this reason. OS X is written in C for the kernel with Objective C for everything else.

      But this isn't going to be the Compat framework, it's the full .Net framework with an x86 CLR and an ARM CLR.

      Do you understand the reason behind the Compact framework (and all mobile device development platforms) is that mobile devices at the hardware level are not desktops. Therefore they have reduced (and different) instruction sets and are optimized for mobile devices (with less memory, OS space, processor power, etc). There are features missing from the .NET Compact framework that are found in full .NET because the hardware itself is not capable of supporting the hardware. In other instances, the mobile device performs differently than desktops.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:Oh gawd by exomondo · · Score: 1

      It's clear you have no idea what backends or middle layers or what an OS is.

      Still having trouble with the semantics i see, don't worry, you'll get there. The back and front ends are relevant to a specific process, there is no definition of a backend without a context, as far as a .Net application process is concerned the backend is the CLR, why? Because it doesn't go any further back than that, as far as it is concerned there is nothing else.

      Windows is an OS.

      Wow, i never knew.

      Can you do everything you can with your mobile device as your desktop? Nothingwithstanding the software differences, there are major hardware differences.

      Mouse + Keyboard on a tablet and you're good to go.

      We are not talking about applications.

      Of course we are, because the applications are what matters.

      We are talking about Windows itself.

      But we're not because fundamentally the OS must be different to run on ARM and x86, but that doesn't matter to the application, it won't care whether it's ARM or x86.

      Java has to run on an OS

      Thanks captain obvious.

      Windows OS is written in C/C++ with some Assembly.

      Captain obvious strikes again.

      If that's not clear to you, you need to do more research on OS development vs application development.

      Why would that not be clear?

      Do you understand the reason behind the Compact framework

      Yes, and that it's not relevant here.

      mobile devices at the hardware level are not desktops.

      Wow, you really are just padding out your post with obvious facts here.

    10. Re:Oh gawd by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I have to state obvious facts because you either don't comprehend computers or you refuse to grasp basic concepts like OS and applications. As for semantics, if you can't understand why CLR isn't the OS, there's no hope for you. I suggest you take a computer science course at you local community college or put down the weed.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Oh gawd by exomondo · · Score: 1

      if you can't understand why CLR isn't the OS

      I never made any such assertion, i clearly stated that my comment was to be taken in the .Net application context, yet you have still taken that comment in the wrong context and proceeded to rant and rave about how it doesn't make sense in that context. A normal person would accept that we are talking about different things so obviously a discussion makes absolutely no sense but a retard like you would continue to argue for the sake of it.

    12. Re:Oh gawd by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Again you keep talking about applications while I keep trying to get you to understand I was talking about the OS. I said it is enormously difficult for MS to get Windows 8 OS to run equally the same on x86 CISC based CPUs as the same on RISC based ARM processors in tablets which is clear to any person by reading up above. And how there is hardware limitations like limited space in that Windows 7 requires a minimum of 16GB of space which will be enormously difficult to fit into a tablet with maybe 32GB total space. I don't say this often, but you're an idiot as you keep interjecting unrelated topics like the CLR.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:Oh gawd by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Again you keep talking about applications while I keep trying to get you to understand I was talking about the OS.

      Which is why, after we were obviously not on the same page given your first reply to my post, i clarified that i was talking about the application level, hence if you're interpreting it in the OS context it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the comment would make no sense. So taking that comment in the context in which it was not intended and continuing discussion is quite obviously pointless.

  18. Slashvertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been noticing a drumbeat on Slashdot. A daily Windows 8 post that looks interesting and/or controversial in the summary, but doesn't really tell me much I didn't already know, or turns out to be some MS rep. blogging about irrelevancies, in TFA.

    Could we please stop posting about a new Windows 8 "feature" every day? This really isn't news until it ships, and we can assess the product as a whole. This is beginning to feel like a daily ad. At the very least, editors, I think you're being had here and should do something about it.

    1. Re:Slashvertising by Jeng · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This really isn't news until it ships, and we can assess the product as a whole.

      This is not a slashvertisement, it is information for people who are interested in what the next MS OS will be. This being a website that is frequented by people who develop software and people who administer software, they need to know what is coming down the pipe before it happens.

      Besides this gives us more ammo to talk crap about MS when they drop features they have talked about.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Slashvertising by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Could we please stop posting about a new Windows 8 "feature" every day?"

      No. Need Page Hits.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  19. Wait... by ZeroSerenity · · Score: 0
    --
    For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
    1. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *yawn*

    2. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they designed the Ribbon.

  20. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by gilleain · · Score: 2

    Wow. I had to look up the word 'shkotzim' - is there any subject, no matter how mundane (OS loading, for example) that can't be turned to anti-jewish sentiment?

    In answer to your question : yes, this UI customisation issue IS the inevitable result of millennia of Jewish culture! It's what they've been planning ALL ALONG!

  21. Good old times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was like this 15 years ago. If I would use the desktop interface:
    C:\>cd windows
    C:\windows>win.com

  22. cutomized desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would be awesome if there really was an open api for Customized desktop apps.
    A little competition could go a long way.

  23. Sounds like Windows 3.x by s_p_oneil · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like Windows 3.x. You booted into DOS and Windows installed and ran as an application on top of it. Of course, at the time my favorite DOS command was deltree, and my favorite folder to use it on was the root Windows 3.x folder.

    1. Re:Sounds like Windows 3.x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      worse than that, it sounds like Windows ME

  24. Command line only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we dispense with the GUI altogether?

  25. It already was by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Windows desktop was already an app. It was called "Explorer.exe".

  26. I actually rather like the Metro UI thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love it even more if it was designed to be as accessible as possible from using a mouse rather than tablet.
    I know it probably won't be and we will be stuck with fiddling around with the mouse position until we get it right where we want, but I can dream...
    I, too, am in the camp that hates desktop OSes being turned in to "huge phones".
    But with this, it really could be designed to be as accessible as possible using mice and keyboard.

    Most applications on computers can be done very easily in the way they are implemented in this.
    With plugins that have a little more access to hardware resources, things that require them can access them. (such as needing more speed, or requiring GPU or whatever)
    Additionally, having the ability to run lite and full versions of programs is a very handy for being tiled in grids to display like this. Admittedly some programs wouldn't really work through this, but most can be run through this method.

    There are a few tiling window managers out there already, some very impressive ones from what I have seen.
    They should look at some of those and take some notes.

    Am I going to get it? Depends what else they butcher with Ribbon. Ribbon, the awful freak-child between tablet OS functionality and desktop OS functionality. Ribbon, the thing that takes up a massive chunk of your screen, then has to be defended by removing yet another huge chunk of the screen (super huge statusbar) they added for GOD knows what reason and say "oh hey look it shows more files now!".
    I skipped Vista and 7 because of many things, particularly that sad excuse of a security system UAC, the annoyingly over-sized window elements and generally wasteful on resources. (particularly Aero, just because I have a nice beefy GPU doesn't mean I want it running all the time! Don't bring up disabling it, please, that isn't the point.)
    While I will certainly still be keeping this install active even if I DID get Win8, I'd rather get it so I can get some more RAM and slightly better hardware support for some things. (mainly for gaming)

  27. Interesting by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

    This is an interesting idea that has shown up elsewhere... In OS X, there is the "full screen" mode, and many windows also have an oblong button in the top right which is used to show/hide extra toolbars, and many apps also use this to switch between "Simple" and "complex" modes, including the Finder.

    The merit would be to force developers to include different interfaces for the same underlying program, and to consider this type of workflow during development. This definitely sounds like a good thing, because many desktop programs are very robust but lack similar tools in the burgeoning touch interface market.

    Tablets are already very powerful and capable of handling these applications, but quickly porting them over would be clunky. Many of these apps would be perfectly usable with a touch interface, but are not available for those platforms despite the practicality. Audacity could work great with a touch interface for example, but we don't want to create an entirely new application when the same one could be used with a slightly different interface.

    I think that positioning the interface choice so predominantly on the desktop will spur the maturation of touch interface on already existing applications, and it will be good for users because they will already be familiar, and will be able to switch back if they can't find a certain option. They'll be able to learn at their own pace without having the rug pulled out from under them. It will also help developers design more modular programs, and slowly build up the touch interface portion instead of having to design two separate applications and make either/or trade-offs for both of them.

    It would be great to re-use all of our code and be able to switch from a touch interface to a mouse/keyboard interface at will. Dock your tablet and it becomes a desktop... for real this time. Take the screen off your desktop and you can walk around with it. Maybe future monitors will have lower-powered hardware built in so we can do this, and snap the monitor back on when we need more horsepower or different input options.

  28. Windows 8 Desktop 'Just Another MS Blunder' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fixed that for you.

  29. Who uses a desktop anymore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I certainly don't. All my apps are pinned to taskbar and i use windows+tab to switch. Anything else is in the start menu and i can use the run bar. Or i use my dock.

    Afraid of change much guys?

    1. Re:Who uses a desktop anymore? by earls · · Score: 1

      Brah, I totally have to see my kick ass wallpaper every now and then. I didn't bitch about Chrome lacking the "set image as wallpaper" in the context menu until I was blue in the face for nothing. I see some tight ass image, set that shit then winkey+d for a good couple hours just to soak in how fucking sex that shit looks. Work? Motherfucker, being fly is my job!

  30. Rolling back to olden days. by tverbeek · · Score: 2

    Explorer.exe is almost exactly analogous to Finder on a Mac: just an app that provides the familiar UI environment.

    What's ironic is that this is pretty much doing Win98/IE4 in reverse. That was when Microsoft decided that not only did you have to load the standard UI at boot time, you had to load their web browser too, so they combined the browser and the UI into a single program. Unbundling the UI from the OS... hell, that's almost like rolling back to before Win95! First boot the OS, then (if you want) load the GUI. :)

    While I can see plenty of good reasons for doing this, it's going to be very confusing to the users, who have no conception of the distinction between the OS and the UI. If you load Windows, and there's no Start button, no (My) Computer, no task bar, etc.... to most people that's not Windows. They don't care if the drivers and kernel and whatnot are all the same; it will be (for their perspective) an entirely different operating system.

    So maybe it's time Microsoft changed the name?

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:Rolling back to olden days. by coolmoose25 · · Score: 1

      So maybe it's time Microsoft changed the name?

      Yes. They should call it Microsoft Bob. And they should put an assistant in there that knocks on your monitor glass, and looks like a paper clip with eyes.

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
  31. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well apparently, the general consensus seems to be that it's a Jewish anti-non-Jewish word.

    Noun
    shegetz (plural shkotzim or shegetzes (rare)) (Judaism, offensive) A gentile, a non-Jewish male.

  32. Trust Microsoft by RandomMonkey · · Score: 0

    But...with such a long and varied history of monopoly power, deception and downright dirty tricks, why would anyone trust Microsoft again when there are so many good free alternatives that have open communities and standards. Don't these guys get it? Focus on the XBox. There is still a market for a closed (and even evil) system here.

    (Granted, I am a grizzled old Unix advocate that would have said this 20 years ago as well. :-D)

    1. Re:Trust Microsoft by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      what good free alternatives? If there were any they would have dominated by now.

  33. 1992 Called by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1992 called; it wants DOS and Windows 3.1 back.

  34. Windows Desktop "Just an App"? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Hey! Port it to Linux!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Windows Desktop "Just an App"? by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, don't. Unity sucks hard enough.

    2. Re:Windows Desktop "Just an App"? by monkyyy · · Score: 0

      he said linux not ubuntu

      --
      warning pointless sig
    3. Re:Windows Desktop "Just an App"? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I meant the UI unity, not Ubuntu.

    4. Re:Windows Desktop "Just an App"? by monkyyy · · Score: 0

      does anyone else use unity, besides ubuntu?

      --
      warning pointless sig
    5. Re:Windows Desktop "Just an App"? by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      Unity is just a desktop desktop manager. You can substitute it, luckily. Yes, I agree, Unity sucks hard. The blogs that follow Ubuntu though don't seem to care what anyone thinks, they blithely go on touting Unity when they should be thoroughly rejecting it.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    6. Re:Windows Desktop "Just an App"? by luxifr · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree, Unity sucks hard.

      So does Gnome3, KDE4 and even XFCE and LXDE... what's left sucks even more if you want a desktop that is fast, comfortable, extensible, customizable and good-looking... Gnome2 was like that and KDE3 was like that, too... *sigh*

  35. So it's going to be like my phone? by TheFakeMcCoy · · Score: 1

    I can load angry birds as soon as my pc starts up... as long as I dont lose it among all my other app icons.

  36. Re:Just an app? Fantastic! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    No, it isn't which is why Apple's trademark for an app store is stupid and wrong. They may think of it more as of an application for a phone or tablet, but not specifically an Apple labelled product. And Windows 8 is going to be for Microsoft Tablets, so the description still wouldn't be far off for the mainstream user who thinks of apps in the more modern parlance.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  37. 20 years ago by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Windows 3.x was just another MSDOS executable.

    and 5 years before that, Amiga Workbench was a multitasking GUI that ran on AmigaDOS

  38. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    Yes, and now read the GGP, knowing what shkotzim means.

    The GGP is himself being anti-Jewish. He's not really hiding it and it's not subtle.

  39. The desktop is the new shell? by Monoman · · Score: 1

    So instead of "dropping to shell" we now go to the Desktop to "do PC stuff"?

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
  40. it's the pattern, kiddo, IT'S THE PATTERN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In answer to your question : yes, this UI customisation issue IS the inevitable result of millennia of Jewish culture! It's what they've been planning ALL ALONG!

    Folks in computer science are supposed to be experts at spotting patterns, and it seems to this shegetz that there is an unmistakable pattern developing here: M$FT was founded by some folks with fairly normal, plain-jane, ah, "vanilla"-sounding names, like "Gates", and "Allen", and yet, slowly but surely, the normal, plain-jane, ah, "vanilla"-sounding names are being pushed to the sidelines, in favor of more exotic names, like "Myhrvold", "Ballmer", and "Sinofsky".

    And, again, if you're worth your salt in CompSci, then you'll have a talent for noticing patterns.

    Not fuzzy chaotic background noise, but weird, statistically-significant [really uber-significant] patterns, which wouldn't present themselves were we observing a purely random Monte Carlo run of the roulette wheel.

    Again: These kinds of patterns ARE NOT RANDOM.

    1. Re:it's the pattern, kiddo, IT'S THE PATTERN by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Ballmer and Sinofsky aren't vanilla-sounding to you? Are you kidding me? Where did you grow up that Gates and Allen sound normal but Ballmer does not?

      Jesus Christ, Ballmer's an English name. Like, from England. It's more English than Gates (Scottish!) or Allen (Scottish again, or Irish!), in fact. Do you...do you think Jewish means "not Scottish"? That's got to be the most charitable interpretation.

      Sinofsky sounds like it comes from Eastern Europe. Belarus or thereabouts. I'd guess that Myrhvold is Norwegian from the looks of it? Low confidence. But there's no fucking pattern at all.

      The vast majority of people in every country outside of the british isles, the United States included, do not have surnames that come from the british isles, even after generations of people changing their surnames to "fit in".

      Well, I'm pretty sure I got trolled here. Well done.

  41. I hate to break it to you... by scorp1us · · Score: 1

    But since Windows 2000, nay, NT it's just been incremental improvements. I still run Win7 in "Windows classic" Let me tell you what's impacted me over the years... Nothing. The kernel has improved (less blue screens) and now I have fancy window docking options. That's about it. Explorer.exe is still king. All the pain and suffering of Vista and its predecessors were introduced by different driver models that were only incrementally better than the last.

    Apps have seen the biggest change, with ribbons (which I hate). I still run XP at home. Get off my lawn! And get off my desktop!

    And I still rock Office 97 on my Win7 machine. It's all incremental since win32.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:I hate to break it to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I still rock Office 97 on my Win7 machine. It's all incremental since win32.

      Obviously you don't use PowerPoint.

      All the pain and suffering of Vista and its predecessors were introduced by different driver models that were only incrementally better than the last.

      Those "incrementally better" driver APIs are the main reason why you have fewer blue screens.

  42. But... by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    they still can't "design" an attractive interface for shit! I give you the Windows 8 Explorer Toolbar Ribbon.

    I've yet to meet the office worker that likes the Office style ribbon, which is exactly what it looks like.

    --
    I8-D
    1. Re:But... by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 1

      I know quite a few who like the Ribbon, but it does take time to get used to using it. Everyone started out hating it, but give them a few weeks and they turn around, like it.

    2. Re:But... by EXrider · · Score: 2

      I can tell you who consistently hates it no matter how long they use it themselves. Anyone who has to walk someone else through doing something using a Ribbon-ized application over the phone. It's absolutely impossible if you don't have the app in front of you for reference yourself. Its especially difficult when the element they're supposed to click on doesn't even have a fucking text label, only a big shiny icon. It's much easier to walk people through navigating hierarchal menus, the way they're organized, you can even feel your way around without having the UI to reference just by feedback from the user's descriptions over the phone. Also, the Ribbon just wastes more screen real estate.

      --
      grep -iw skynet /etc/services
  43. startx? dm? by wzzzzrd · · Score: 2

    Ahm, so? It's the default on Linux, you have several tiers, you can use no graphics or windows at all (shell), "just X" with twm or just a root window, a full blown desktop like kde. You can even use something sophisticated like clutter without X (direct FB backend).

    Sooo...What's the news, Microsoft?

    --
    On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
    1. Re:startx? dm? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      I dunno, you could technically do that with windows. This just says instead of 1 wm (explorer.exe) its now going to have 2...

  44. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saying the truth =/= anti-semitism. You're going to claim that the fact that there are also a disproportionate number of Jews involved in Hollywood is just a heathen rumor too? If there are under 15 million Jews in the whole world and only 5 million in the US, you would expect to see many more Mexican and African actors, directors, music producers and bankers, for example. This is not anti-semitism it's a verifiable fact. Jews stick together and when Jews are onto a good thing and easy money, they hire more Jews. Screw the goy. Equal opportunity employers so long as you are Jewish.

  45. media center? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Sooooo..... is this Windows 8 touch interface what the Windows 7 Media Center became? In all fairness, if the Windows desktop really isn't loaded, and the touch interface will come up by itself, that's getting reasonably close to ... well, what everyone else has... But I have to wonder, based on past experiences with M$ reuse and rebranding, whether the Windows 8 touch interface is actually an updated Media Center rebranded, and to actually get anything done that requires more than just touching big squares would require that you load the desktop.

    For instance, I can read and create Slashdot articles on my Android phone. (It's not pleasant, due to the screen size, but it can be done.) Can the same thing be done (easily) from the Windows 8 touch interface, or as a practical matter, would you need to load the desktop? (Note I said "need", not "want". What I'm looking for is some glimmer of hope that a Windows 8 tablet would be useful without having to drag around a keyboard and mouse for those times when you know, you wanted to write something.)

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  46. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

    I know I'm just wading in to the insanity here... but why do all occupations have to have representative populations that mirror cultural proportions?

    Maybe a lot of Jews are just funny?

    Is the NFL or the NBA representative of the US population at large?

  47. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    And if everybody had been trying to kill off your people for several thousand years, wouldn't you tend to stick together too? And possibly have a small bit of distrust for "outsiders"? Who would you believe - thousands of years of history, or what some person is currently telling you?

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  48. Blue Screen of Death App by Grogan+The+Destroyer · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this indicates that I'm a fatalist, but can they just take me straight to the blue screen of death?

  49. Different shell? by MiniChaz · · Score: 1

    Is this really all that interesting? Isn't he probably just saying Explorer isn't the shell in W8? You've been able to set different shells for years haven't you?

  50. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah this is the jewish persecution answer you normally get whenever you claim that jews are among the worst racists. You do realize that the whole 6 million jews business is based on only the word of a handful of jews, right? Yeah lots of jews were killed. Lots of them emigrated, too. A lot of blacks were killed, a lot of homosexuals were killed, a lot of mentally handicapped were killed and certainly a lot of Russian prisoners of war were killed. Now how much was systematic homicide and how much was not being able to feed the prisoners for lack of food because the German transport network was constantly under air attack?

    Enough of the persecution story. Being persecuted does not allow you to sidestep the argument that jews are among the most racist humans on the planet. Like the americans, why don't you stop and wonder for a minute why it is that everybody hates you? Because you share the same attitude. It's all about us, and fuck everyone else.

  51. Same kind of thing they started on servers by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    With new Windows server OSes you can choose a "full" installation or a "core" installation. The core installation lacks a whole lot of shit, including the GUI. I mean you still have a mouse cursor and window manager, but the GUI as in explorer itself is missing. All command line interfacing (though as noted apps can run graphically if they wish). You can do it to save resources, though it can be a bit of a pain to administer.

    Sounds like this is just the next step in making shit like that easier. It can apply to desktops, as well as servers, and is something that can be loaded or not on demand, rather than having to choose. Makes sense to me. Windows is actually fairly modular at a low level, they just don't make it that easy for users to disable things.

  52. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why I pay my monthly dues to the IJC.. Get over it..Fuckin' goyim!

  53. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Cito · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Of the twelve(12) senior executives of the “Big Six” media corporations, ten(10) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 83%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the “Big Six” media corporations by a factor of 41.5 times(4,150 percent).

    Of the sixty(60) senior executives of the major Hollywood studios, trade unions, and talent agencies, fifty(50) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 83%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major Hollywood studios, trade unions, and talent agencies by a factor of 41.5 times(4,150 percent).

    Of the sixty-four(64) senior executives of the major television broadcast networks, cable networks, and production companies, fifty-seven(57) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 89%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major television broadcast networks, cable networks, and production companies by a factor of 44.5 times(4,450 percent).

    Of the fifty(50) senior executives of the major music labels and trade organizations, thirty-nine(39) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 78%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major music labels and trade organizations by a factor of 39 times(3,900 percent).

    Of the forty-six(46) senior executives of the major radio broadcast networks and station owners, twenty-eight(28) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 61%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major radio broadcast networks and station owners by a factor of 30.5 times(3,050 percent).

    Of the forty-six(46) senior executives of the major advertising corporations and trade associations, thirty-one(31) are Jews. This is a numerical representation of 67%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major advertising corporations and trade associations by a factor of 33.5 times(3,350 percent).

    Of the sixty-seven(67) senior executives of the major television and radio news networks, forty-seven(47) are Jews or have Jewish spouses. This is a numerical representation of 70%. Jews are approximately 2% of the U.S. population.* Therefore Jews are over-represented among the senior executives of the major television and radio news networks by a factor of 35 times(3,500 percent).

    :) Actually doing research into numbers of Jews is really shocking and no wonder there is antisemitism Of Course I am a hard core antisemite. I am anti religious, anti muslim, anti christian and anti jew screw 'em all. Jews can diaf just as all other religious nuts

  54. OS X Finder is Just Another App by macs4all · · Score: 0

    Since OS X 10.0.0, the Finder has been "just another app". The fact that it launches by default (like Explorer.exe in Windows), and doesn't have a Quit/Exit command (just like Explorer.exe) unless it is enabled through a little preference-file trickery, doesn't change the fact that it is just another app.

  55. One OS to rule the all by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    So they are creating a GUI that will work on any device. Or rather each device running Win8 will look like the other Win8 devices. Unfortunately, I think they will be one step behind Apple. When you run a ppt/keynote file on an external display but off your Macbook, the main display is your slides, and the secondary display can be notes (notes you've written into your ppt/keynote file). To me this is where it's at! Using multiple displays for different functions, and having both screens in the full screen mode. My main issue with Windows is the full screen settings. Play a game, it maxes out on the primary display (D1), switch displays and the you loose the the full screen option on D1. You want to play full screen on D2, too bad, switch your displays around. You want to show a full screen pic on D2 while pausing your full screen game on D1, too bad you can't do that. Currently I only have 2 screens (22" & 40"), but in the near future I plat to add a third (27"). At some point I will add a fourth (55+"). Additionally, I would really like to plug my phone/netbook into my desktop and have the phone be able to access the power of the desktop. Personally, this is where MSFT should go.

  56. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...jews are among the most racist humans...

    $ETHNIC_GROUP is racist. *sigh*

  57. Is it sexy yet? by odirex · · Score: 2

    I recall reading that the MetroUI itself was an html5 app. If that's the case I'm sure this version will be much better for customization than previous ones. Hacking the metroUI interface or replacing it with a different html5 app will be far easier than replacing the explorer.exe shell has been in the past. I'm sure it won't take too long before the mod community comes out with a replacement desktop UI that's actually slick and functional.

  58. didn't MS claim the universe would explode by v1 · · Score: 0

    if they removed explorer? that was a big part of their browser fight several years ago. Now that they totally lost that fight they're going to just give us the option to quit the desktop? They made it sound like Jesus himself couldn't remove IE from Windows.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:didn't MS claim the universe would explode by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Windows Explorer (explorer.exe) != Internet Explorer (iexplore.exe)

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  59. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Jews stick together and when Jews are onto a good thing and easy money, they hire more Jews. Screw the goy. Equal opportunity employers so long as you are Jewish.

    How is this different than any other race/group/clan/side of the tracks?

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  60. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    Um sure except I wasn't saying any ethnic group is not racist. I was commenting on the post stating that jews stick together and offering an opinion as to why I think they would tend to stick together.

    But I do find you fanciful stories of "food supply problems" being the reason millions of jews were killed in WWII quite humorous. Sure "a lot" of blacks, homosexuals, POWs, etc. were also killed in the war, but if you can point to any other group that was killed in the proportions jews were, I would love to have a link to your sources.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  61. well a laptop in a dock is still a desktop right? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    any ways at this places Big site a lot of users have dual screens and it is a mix of windows XP with windows 7 rolling out. Now I don't see a phone / touchpad GUI fitting in the big screen / multi tasking office world.

  62. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your Struggle interests me. Do you have a book, perhaps written while in prison?

  63. A New Fashion Trend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Seattle is somewhat known for being 'Metrosexual', does the new Metro UI mean that the new tech chiq is going to be 'Metro-hexual'?

  64. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the reason millions of jews were killed in WWII quite humorous.

    Just like I find the idea of a few dozen jews smashing the bones of 750,000 burned jewish corpses to dust with tin cups at Treblinka humorous. I thought jews were supposed to be good at math. How many weeks did it take, you say? Oh, and how much fuel was required to burn all those bodies? 4% of all the state forest land in Germany - only for Treblinka? Impressive. It seems they are much better at telling stories than doing math - which would explain why they are all in Hollywood. Which is easier to believe - that the Nazi government managed to hide the systematic extermination of millions of people from the entire German population for half a dozen years, or that jews are liars and the Holocaust drama suits them very well? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure many thousands of jews were murdered, like many other of the "under-race-men". But I think the whole Holocaust thing is a little overhyped. Anyway, serves you right for killing jesus - oh no, another work of fiction.

  65. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    Ok, sorry but I really can't have a serious discussion with an anonymous coward who is a Holocaust denier. Doesn't really matter to you I suppose - just keep rambling on your nonsense. I wasn't really paying attention anyway.

    P.S. I happen to personally know two jews that were in concentration camps, and have told me of firsthand accounts of what happened there. I would dare you to look either of them in the eye and call them liars, or tell them that they are "over hyping" their time spent there.

    P.P.S. I am not jewish, so your anti-semitic comments really have no effect

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  66. I like that by drolli · · Score: 1

    But actually it hase been already like this for a long time. You could prevent loading the explorer.

  67. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by theArtificial · · Score: 1

    Sure "a lot" of blacks, homosexuals, POWs, etc. were also killed in the war, but if you can point to any other group that was killed in the proportions jews were, I would love to have a link to your sources.

    As in millions of deaths? Look no further than Russians, between the Reich and Stalin. Japan was pretty ruthless to the Chinese: WW2 Casualties NeroMetrics. I've had someone argue that the simply because there are more of either of these groups that it's not as bad. Human deaths are human deaths. Beyond the WW2 how about how many people died during Mao's Cultural Revolution? Estimates are at ~60 million, no religious motives there either 20th Century Genocides.

    --
    Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  68. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    You may have missed the "in proportion" part. What percentage of the entire Russian population was killed? I was only referring to WWII deaths - obviously there have been plenty of other madmen bent on killing millions of people. But have any of them managed to wipe out 20-30% of a given ethnic group?

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  69. Welcome to back 1992.... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    Hey Microsoft welcome back to 1992. You know that time when the OS ran the computer and a desktop environment ran on top of the OS, like DOS and Windows 1.0, and Unix and Motif or CDE or ...

    There was a reason why Unix and Linux never stopped operating in that mode. Glad MS finally joined the club again.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:Welcome to back 1992.... by tgd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Windows has always worked that way, since day one.

      Windows boots into NT mode, and starts win32. Win32 loads the display bits, and starts the various processes that manage winstations, and starts winlogon to manage your user sessions.

      Go into the registry, and you can boot every version of windows to a text prompt with no graphics at all.

      I find it funny on here when people talk about the things that Windows doesn't do or Linux does do, and 99% of the people talking about it have never pieced together a Linux system from scratch, or done the same with Windows. Having done both, I can tell you the two may be configured differently, but logically do a lot of the same things. And most of the guys I know (myself included) who are intimately familiar with both systems from the Kernel on out will tell you that Windows, at that level, is a lot more modern and sophisticated than Linux is.

      The things people call out as being "bad" in Windows tend to be the things that the billion people who use Windows expect to have. That's the reality of having customers to support.

    2. Re:Welcome to back 1992.... by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

      No windows expert, but I always had the understanding that the 'display bits' and window manager lived in kernel space. Wikipedia seems to back me up too.

    3. Re:Welcome to back 1992.... by nenchev · · Score: 1

      Most people don't know how to work with Windows as you do, therefore, who cares how much you can strip it down or change it. People want clean fast, non bloated usable OS, a platform that can be interacted with and developed for easily, not something they can take apart, fix and tailor to their needs.

  70. Win8 = Win7+PlusPack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like W8 is just some eye-candy bloat placed on-top of Win7. Work on Windows9 has already begun anyway so i'll skip Windows8.

  71. saving memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i thought microsoft's line was that any memory not used is memory wasted (hence readyboost or wahatever that service is that keeps memory full of programs it thinks you use regularly) so why the big concern about saving memory all of a sudden?

  72. No, you're right by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm wrong, but explorer.exe has been user space for a while now.

    I did touch-screen interface on an industrial PC running windows back in '96. We wanted to prevent guys on the line from playing games, so we told it to load our full-screen app instead of explorer.exe. I don't recall what we did ourselves to run other things ;-)

  73. So what's really being said here... by idbeholda · · Score: 2

    If the desktop only starts up on command, that means users will be presented with a black screen of death. How is this different from every other version of windows?

  74. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by theArtificial · · Score: 1

    What percentage of the entire Russian population was killed? I was only referring to WWII deaths

    Google it. So which country were all the Jews from? Keep in mind you're now comparing segments of multiple countries civilians against that of a single country. I hope you're not implying that one group's deaths count for more (care to define which race "Jewish" is?) than another.

    But have any of them managed to wipe out 20-30% of a given ethnic group?

    Are you ignorant of how Europeans and later the American government's encounters with the natives went? How about Native Taiwanese?

    --
    Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
  75. MS seems to be listening by johnwerneken · · Score: 1

    Many have noted that a touch-oriented GUI is not helpful for a lot of things. Looks like the option of keyboards mice command lines and hopefully 'traditional' application menus command line switches etc will remain as well.

  76. Windows 3.1, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, users can now simply type 'win' at the DOS prompt to load the windows desktop...

    Oh, this isn't 1992?

  77. Re:Just an app? Fantastic! by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    Um, no. Outside of serious connoisseurs of Apple Kool-Aid, nobody thinks that Apple has a monopoly on the term "app".

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  78. Multiple product lines by wesleyjconnor · · Score: 1

    Why not *gasp* MULTIPLE operating systems? Why do they always go all or nothing.
    Lets have Win7-2 simply an upgrade to what is a fine operating system.
    PLUS a new beaut fancy app-based IOS competitor with new functionality with an easy dev environ so people can produce the content and anything that is worthwhile goes into the next Windows release

    I've (and im sure many others) been thinking for years why doesn't Microsoft keep IE as its bloated beautiful self and fork Firefox or similar and have a super speedy hip cool l33t trendy web 2.7 compatible browser that people will want to use.
    IE isn't going anywhere half of what we use at work requires it full stop but it doesn't mean they cant have other products out there, trying new things, developing ideas

    1. Re:Multiple product lines by jbplou · · Score: 1

      The O/S makes sense the browser makes no sense. If you market two browsers you need to patch and secure both, you need to waste time explaining to uses when to use each, and you dilute your product line by having two virtually identical products to 99% of your customers.

  79. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by cavreader · · Score: 1

    Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with conflicts in religious doctrine it is just a time honered way to segregate a small group of people who happen to be reletively successful in the business world. They made the perfect scapegoat for Hitler and the Arabs have taken the lead in making sure this strategy continues. Point out the successful Jews and tell the proles they are the reason they are poor and then let nature take it's course. The same pattern has been used throughout history. Of course the Arabs ran into a small problem when they repeatedly got their asses kicked but they have changed from using tanks and soldiers to using the "Palestinian" ordinance.

  80. Re:Just an app? Fantastic! by fnj · · Score: 1

    Apple can take their redefinition of common dictionary words and go jump in a lake.

  81. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What the heck does "or have Jewish spouses" have to do with ANYTHING?

  82. Can we bypass MetroUI? by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

    This design is fine and good for Tablet PCs, but if the street doesn't go both ways, I will be skipping this and potentially subsequent releases of Windows. I may use Linux for everyday tasks, but I am a PC gamer and Windows is the only thing I can run any worthwhile game on. I don't want to see Metro after my initial bootup to configure a new gaming PC, and if there's a way to go immediately to the Windows desktop, I'm going to use it. If there isn't, Microsoft better be prepared to support Windows 7 for a very long time.

    --
    The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    1. Re:Can we bypass MetroUI? by jbplou · · Score: 1

      It will probably be a setting to go straight to desktop, O can't I agine corporate clients will want things like CSR reps and accountants logging into the tiles and no desktop. If you can't do it through settings I'm sure it will be scriptable.

  83. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, a look @ the Guiness Book of World Records on greatest mass murders would reveal that the largest massacres happened in China, courtesy Chairman Mao's Red Guards, and then the Stalin's Soviet regime, under both the Collectivization of farms in the Ukraine, and all the internal deportations to the Gulag that happened during his regime.

    Incidentally, I'm not the same AC as the holocaust denier above, and I do think that it's despicable that pro-Nazi as well as pro-Islamic activism is rampant on /., both from ACs as well as Cito and others like him above. I have no doubt about the 6 million Jews killed during WWII. It wasn't the Nazis alone who killed them - the Soviets too indulged in a lot of anti-Semitic pogroms.

    Why have Stormfront when you have Slashdot?

  84. Re:Just an app? Fantastic! by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Apple should be banned from working in English, and sentenced to being limited to words in Esperanto!

  85. Mouseless interface? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Is this something where one can just use a keyboard w/o mouse - like use the TAB and arrow keys to move between options, hit ENTER to select and after going in, just use keyboard shortcuts? Handy if one's mouse is not working, or doing weird stuff

    I recall once in the 90s, under Windows 3.1, I had to help somebody whose mouse was not working, and she needed keyboard instructions to enter a certain application. It was painful to describe it before it got working.

    Somehow, I'm not liking the idea of a CLI where you type Win. That's the thing I want to avoid w/ any OS - Windows, OS-X, Linux, BSD, whatever. Someone who loves the CLI so much can use one of the Linux or BSDs, or a Powershell enabled Windows w/ no GUI, if one so wants. Incidentally, if one goes w/ a Powershell enabled GUI, Vista would be fine: it's only b'cos of the way it manages its memory when the desktop is loaded that it sucks in comparison to XP, otherwise, from a Powershell interface, it'd be fine!

  86. A car with a retractable steering wheel... by incognito84 · · Score: 1

    I'm going to design a car where the steering wheel retracts into the dashboard whenever you're not actually steering... makes sense, right? Good on you, Microsoft!

  87. Filing Patents is what is delaying Windows 8 by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is loading themselves up with every conceivable patent before W8 is released. My guess there will be patents from every aspect, beginning with the bios
    I also am thinking of the many copyrights for the look and feel of W8.

    Well, be ready to pay if you need W8. At least you will get something better than Windows 3.0 or some other infamous Microsoft catastrophes.

    Linux GUI interface designers better develop hundreds of different arrangements, in order to show prior deployment. Otherwise, the Linux desktop or tablet interface will be slaughtered by the number of patents that are already being filed that will act as a deterrent.

    Time for patents to apply to machinery, not to algorithms or generic methods.

     

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  88. Re:Sinofsky, Ballmer - am I sensing a pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It cleverly caused all his statistics to come out to be about 2x what they should have been (since he doubled the sample size but "forgot" to include that in his calculation).

    You know what they say. There's lies, there's damn lies, and then there's statistics...

  89. Thanks for coming out Microsoft...*thumbs up* by nenchev · · Score: 1

    I don't like this tiles approach, I don't constantly need to see the weather, I don't constantly need to see stocks or news on my screen. These tiles have processes that are going run all the time (even if tiled mode uses fewer resources). Stupid approach, a shitty attempt to spray paint and decorate a bloated old rusty OS. When I installed OS X Snow Leopard on my system, I think it ended up freeing close to 2 GB on my system (upgrade from Leopard) and things started running faster. On the other hand, MS decides to keep Windows in the background and runs some crappy touch-screen tailored (wtf?) tile based frontend, rather than focusing more polishing and optimizing their OS. Being a .NET for a bunch of years now, I'm very happy with their developer products, I wish their Windows team(s) would finally release something to impress just as much.

  90. Re:How is this Windows? by black+soap · · Score: 1

    So you are saying that if there are no more windows, it isn't really Windows any more? I think they've long since moved Windows from being a descriptor to being a meaningless trademark. Kind of like how KFC no longer stands for Kentucky Fried Chicken - the official legal name of the company is 3 letters.

  91. Windows being light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just wondering if it will be just as robust as any windows os distro. If so, then when you actually call the app your device may just die as any other pc when start-up. I would like to see if microsoft has finally managed to create an interface that doesn't demand all your memory and trash your multitasking capability.
    Windows mobile for me was just so sad to deal with. I was already slow a couple weeks after I got the phone...guess you can imagine what happened after a couple months.