What Might Have Happened To Windows Media Center

Phopojijo writes: Microsoft has officially dropped Windows Media Center but, for a time, it looked like Microsoft was designing both Windows and the Xbox around it. That changed when Vista imploded and the new leadership took Windows in a different direction. Meanwhile, Valve Software and others appear to be tiptoeing into the space that Microsoft sprinted away from.

Comments

MS confuses GUI design with functionality

[Karmashock]

First, I think many GUIs should be provided by MS and should be optional for users.

For example, if you want the traditional XP type desktop, I think MS should permit that for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying it should be butt ugly but the same buttons should be in the same places that do the same things. You can update the look of those buttons or add animations but the same buttons in the same places.

Also have a tablet interface for people that have touch screens etc.

Also have a tv remote type interface.

Also, a purely text based interface is good.

If I missed something, then just assume I suggested it. Just put them all in there.

Second, there is no good reason for the Xbox to be incompatible with the PC and the PC incompatible with the xbox. Xbox games shoul run natively on a windows machine. They are intentionally made to not work that way and that's a dumb move. Why do that? To push your console? But the console doesn't make money. The GAMES make money. Not the console. The console actually loses money initially and it takes years for the company to so much as break even on the initial console costs.

Now, a possible compromise here is that MS could say "we will permit any Xbox game to run on any windows machine but we will only permit MS approved products to run on the Xbox. And then you make part of that approval process that the company agrees to give a percentage of game sales to MS. I believe this is how Xbox games work. So MS would lose NOTHING by doing this. They'd actually start getting a cut of licensing money for PC games effectively. And porting games back and forth wouldn't be required because they'd effectively be inter-compatible systems.

Another fun thing they could do with Xboxes is permit them to work as totally normal PCs. Again, I basically think the Xbox should just run windows with TV centric GUI. But if I want to surf websites, do my taxes, or check my email on my xbox, it should be something that works basically the same way as on the PC. Why not? That would if anything improve the value of the xbox.

MS could annihilate Sony with something like this... bridging the gap between the console and the PC so that they're the same system. That would mean

Third, I'd like to see more tablets and even phones running desktop operating systems with fully accessible memory. I'd like the firmware chip for example to just be a micro SD card hiding under the battery. So if something goes wrong you can pull the stupid chip, pop it into another machine, sort out whatever went wrong, and then put it back into the phone.

here people are going to point out "but the gui on a desktop is wrong for a phone"... No shit? What is the title of my comment? My point is that you can have many GUIs for the same operating system. I'd like to see MS really grasp that and possibly during installation query the user to choose which GUI they want the system to default to on boot. It should be something that can be hot switchable without having to log off first or something.

Basically what we're talking about here are different versions of Explorer.exe. Have explorer be the old school GUI and then have a different version for whatever other variation you're interested in.

MS could instantly have more apps on their phone than any of their competitors because all the windows apps would run on one of their phones. Now sure, most of the GUIs for most of those programs are going to be inappropriate. However, just as MS can make multiple GUIs for Windows, so too can you make multiple GUIs for those programs. Ideally, MS would pave the way there by having different GUIs for their Office Suite etc.

Now see this in operation in the corporate world... imagine if corporations could put desktop apps on your phone?

Here people are going to point out the whole x86/arm thing about the various CPUs not being inter-compatible etc. I am aware. I don't credit the notion that you can't put an x86 CPU in a phone or tablet. The only thing that would be r

Re:MS confuses GUI design with functionality

[Anonymous Coward]

First off I think Microsoft made a path for Windows 8 based on crisis management. When the iPad was released Microsoft was in a terrible position because it lacked no real path to a good tablet. I personally think Microsoft lost interest in tablets and so they never believed that tablets were wanted in the Windows community.
So when the iPad had major success Microsoft got worried and pushed through a hurried Windows version that would be tablet friendly. That of course was Windows 8. The problem Steve Sinofsky designing Windows 8 for a tablet is that he totally ignored Windows core users and simply focused on what was only a perception that everyone would want a Windows tablet. The better solution for a lack of a Windows tablet would have been to actually design a Windows tablet OS and have Windows 7 go through its normal upgrade cycle for PC's. However, Microsoft would have had to start development of a tablet OS long before it even started Windows 8 and so it became clear to Sinofsky and Ballmer that a cobbled together Windows 8 would have to do. This would not only start a series of OS upgrades that addressed more platforms. But in Microsoft's minds it would be better because they would deal with one OS rather then what Apple did doing a separate mobile OS and its OS X for Mac's. of course we know now what happened. Windows PC users became disenchanted that Windows 8 was so unlike what they were familiar with and while Windows 8 was not so bad for tablets. Microsoft and its PC partners failed to deliver any really good tablet to counter what Apple had done with the iPad. Which was already into next generation models so the iPad was already firmly controlling the tablet market. Unfortunately Microsoft's first Surface models were not going to compete with the iPad. The Surface RT was not what Windows users wanted, and the pro model was just too expensive.
Fast forward to Windows 10 and Microsoft still struggles to define how PC users and tablet users can coexist within one OS and all be happy.

Re:MS confuses GUI design with functionality

[jedidiah]

The entire system to support MythTV including full desktop GUI support, the command line, and the IR remote interface system as well as things like database support and a full build environnment clocks in at a whopping 4G. It doesn't have to be a bloated pig.

Vista imploded because of Media Center.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

One of the most ambitious projects Microsoft undertook was to thwart the "audio-video pirates". Its logic was this: "If we deliver a platform where it is impossible to pirate audio and video content delivered to the users, MPAA and RIAA will line up behind us, all the songs/videos will be released for our platform and we will be rolling in dough".

The high fidelity way to steal content was to write an audio/video driver that installs itself between the code and the device forming a T. Then silently record the stream before delivering it to the audio/video cards. So they went ahead and created the "protected audio/video path" concepts, signed drivers, accepted possible incompatibility with all the existing devices as the price to pay. ??AA did not like Apple's dominance and being forced sell tracks dollar a pop with Apple getting 30 cents commission. iTunes was allowing people who bought songs to make CDs (yes, CDs were quite dominant at that time) etc. So the logic of Microsoft was quite sound, and it makes sense among the suits.

But they forgot the crucial "IF" that formed the foundation of the logic. Can anyone thwart the alleged pirates? Even if the protected signed drivers stopped this method, there was always the analog hole. One can record with reasonable fidelity audio out. Similarly, with more difficulty, the video out too.

The entire concept of Vista was to take command of the living room entertainment center the way MS-Office took command of the corporate desktops. They could not deliver ??AA what they wanted and were promised: a piracy-proof entertainment platform. But it complicated the OS to such an extent it was very unstable. This on top the par-for-the-course bungling of MS suits. Certifying under powered machines as vista capable to play favorites with intel over AMD, that sort of thing.

The damage lingers on to this day. There is a service that runs on all Windows platform that watches all the code crashes and pop up the dialog "I saw something crash? Do you want to try it in WinXP compatibility mode?" That service collects data all day and phones home at night. Our company consolidated three locations into one new building. Some 1500 computers phoned home using the same gateway at the same time. Random crashes on machines that used to run for weeks without rebooting. Traced it to this damned thing. Somehow 500 phone-homes per gateway was ok, at 1500 it crashed randomly. There are hundreds of such things buried deep inside OS due to Vista fiasco.