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.'"

13 of 375 comments (clear)

  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 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..

  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 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)
    2. 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.)

  3. 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.

  4. 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!
  5. 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.

  6. Move Along by sehlat · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's not the Droid I was looking for.

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

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

  8. 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.
  9. Re:Windows Desktop "Just an App"? by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, don't. Unity sucks hard enough.

  10. 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.