Fixing Windows 8, Part 6: Offer Desktop Apps in Windows Store ... For Both Windows 8 and RT

Reliable, safe, and consistent desktop applications should be offered through Windows Store

This one will be controversial, but bear with me for a moment. While Windows RT is correctly viewed as Microsoft’s chance to more quickly shed legacy deadwood than is possible with mainstream Windows, I think its mission can be more clearly stated differently. That is, Windows RT is Microsoft’s chance to change Windows into a more controlled environment, one that is safer and ultimately better for users. And one way Microsoft can ensure this is to also offer well-made desktop applications in Windows Store, for both Windows 8 and RT.

Put another way, while many assume that Windows RT will more quickly jettison the desktop than will Windows 8+, it’s pretty clear that many useful Windows utilities will simply never be adapted to Metro. And while I’ve previously called for Microsoft to extend the Metro environment with support for more advanced applications in Fixing Windows 8, Part 4: Evolve Metro for Pro Apps, that support may never come or may take a few versions of Windows.

In the meantime, or regardless, Microsoft can formally support desktop applications in Windows Store for both Windows 8 and Windows RT. In fact, the mechanisms are already in place. All that’s needed is a Visual Studio 2013 update that will allow developers to target ARM with desktop applications.

Note: Microsoft does allow third party developers to advertisement desktop applications in Windows Store today. However, these applications are not sold or downloaded through Windows Store, nor are they beholden to any of the Windows Store app ecosystem rules. 

Given that Apple essentially offers this exact model with its own Mac App Store, as noted in Apple Gets it Right with Mac App Store, there’s even precedent for offering a more controlled applications environment alongside the freewheeling world of Internet-downloadable applications. (You might also consider this the equivalent of Amazon AppStore compared to the wider-availability Google Play app store.)

Looking at the goals for Windows Store and the new apps ecosystem, it’s not hard to imagine how this system could be adapted to desktop applications and how beneficial this change would be, especially for Windows RT.

Licensing. Today, Metro-style apps downloaded from Windows Store must be licensed to run on 5 PCs and devices that are tied to a single Microsoft account. So, too, could those desktop applications offered through Windows Store.

One tile on the Start screen. As with their Metro counterparts, new desktop applications offered from Windows Store should install just one tile on the Start screen. No more mess. (Likewise, they could offer one-click uninstall from the Start screen too.)

Privacy, security, reliability and performance. Desktop application could conform to the same strict guidelines regarding user privacy, security, reliability, and performance that are required of Metro apps. This would obviate any concerns about battery life, or whatever, since Microsoft would simply reject applications that don’t work properly.

Taken a step further, Microsoft could formalize other rules for desktop applications, including offer a consistent full-screen mode, that would make them integrate better with Metro-style apps.

Some will try to pick this idea apart. But I’m challenging the assumption that Windows RT is about something as specific as the death of the desktop: I think Windows RT is about offering consistent and reliable experiences, period. And one way Microsoft could accomplish this while offering users real benefits is to curate desktop applications and offering them via Windows Store. Done right, this could eliminate the few remaining disadvantages of Windows RT in particular, but it would also benefit Windows 8 users since all apps (and applications) offered through the store are known to be reliable, safe, and well-made.

Discuss this Article 42

superface
on Jan 7, 2013

Paul,

I really like this idea. Why not allow desktop apps but restrict them to use the WinRT APIs + WPF?
I'd really like it if an app could have two versions like IE10 does.

So there would be a desktop and a metro version, with the metro version being designed more for small screen touch devices and the desktop version for desktops and when you've docked your tablet.

qbob
on Jan 8, 2013

Agreed on WinRT desktop style apps, ever since Build 2011 I've been hoping to see some movement here. I can understand why Microsoft want to try to focus developers on full/split screen apps initially to build the touch-friendly store and tablet/convertible ecosystem for smaller screens. I can also understand that a Microsoft controlled single source store that delivered anything like a traditional Windows program may raise difficulties with regulatory authorities. But to pretend that multiple apps and data sets on screen is somehow passé is all pretty crazy with so many counter examples its hard to know where to start its all so obvious.

Selling Win32 apps has become largely impractical for small independent ISVs, for niche markets its far too much trouble to set up distribution to meet the needs of customers growing used to the simplicity of app stores and a Windows store would help a lot. Actually I've found the Win32->WinRT aspect not too problematic when experimenting with some of my desktop apps, sure there are some key missing elements from the new API but the main problem is some things just don't make sense forced into full/split screen on a larger display so I've put those projects on ice until Microsoft gets its act together. They have successfully got me to look to focussing more effort on simpler software for tablets this year, but in my case that means more attention on iOS and Android until the Windows story is sorted out. As Paul has pointed out, this is a major missed opportunity for Microsoft to benefit from the last 20 years of Windows software development, one to be rectified ASAP.

markb
on Jan 7, 2013

In order to conform to the privacy, security, reliability and performance of Metro apps they would have to rewrite the Win32 runtime to make it similar to WinRT. Without doing that the apps would be as insecure as on desktop Windows and the last thing I want to run on a tablet is an anti virus and firewall. I'd rather they just removed the desktop as soon as possible as the only reason its there is because Office could not be converted to Metro in time.

pratnala
on Jan 7, 2013

Paul, you're a genius. But, for this, they would have to make huge improvements to the Win32 APIs which they don't seem to be interested in currently. The Win32 APIs can really rock with all the power-saving and performance-enhancing features of the WinRT APIs

pmbAustin
on Jan 7, 2013

Not if they limited application development to .Net (C# et al), and that the app be a self-contained EXE that installs in one single folder, etc. It would limit the kinds and types of apps that could be in the Store, for sure, but it's still better and more flexible than the current situation.

neonspark
on Jan 7, 2013

MSFT seriously misjudged the lack of a desktop ecosystem in windows RT to be a major problem.

turns out everybody was right: nobody wants windows 8 for the touch UI alone. The desktop part is what puts it on top of android. without it, it just isn't.

Yuxie
on Jan 7, 2013

A better alternative would be "windowed" apps in general. I believe you said that this was impossible due to entirely different codes. Sorry Paul, but I call BS on that one... because emulators do just that.

Asgard
on Jan 7, 2013

Not so BS. One major part of Metro is scalability to different screen sizes that windowed apps would not provide. Many windows in tablets would just be a mess. They could have provided half size apps tough to let run 2 apps side by side.

Other thing is the new security model where apps know nothing about each other or the surrounding environment and run in sandbox. Keeping the surrounding platform as simple as possible is important, just remember what has happen before. I can easily write a program in desktop that intervenes with the behavior of other programs or the operating system.

Yuxie
on Jan 7, 2013

I am not talking about changing all desktop applications to metro or all metro applications to desktop. I am saying that it is possible for 2 systems to run in one screen. Let aero be aero, let metro be metro. But it is entirely possible that aero can be full screen and metro can be windowed.

tbsteph
on Jan 7, 2013

Makes total sense to me. One of the beauties of OSX is the app store. Particularly helpful if, for some reason, one needs to re-download an app (No disks, activation keys needed.).

joewood1972
on Jan 7, 2013

It's the security sandbox that's the primary issue here. Win32 just doesn't work in a sandbox - there would need to be considerable changes to support it. It also doesn't support integration to contracts (like file save to a folder provider, or the share charm).

That aside, what if you could write a 'windowed' app using WinRT - would that provide any benefit? I'm not sure if it really would be worth the effort. Do overlapping windows make sense on a touch enabled device? If we're talking about utilities only, then a WinRT full screen version of MMC would make much more sense.

The security sandbox is here to stay, the days of applications having full access to the machine are over. Window chrome is also gone and doesn't make sense on touch devices.

bradwestness
on Jan 7, 2013

Any application that you might want to keep running in the background makes more sense as a desktop application since WinRT apps are forced to sleep when you switch away.

For instance, if you used a Windows Movie Maker type WinRT app to create a movie you want to share, you're going to be stuck watching the progress bar while it exports rather than being able to switch away and do something else.

The ability to write desktop applications for Windows RT would mean the ability to create and run applications that can run in the background while you do other stuff (granted, the ability to "pin" the application to one side alleviates this slightly).

It is possible to access the WinRT runtimes (or a subset of them, at any rate) from a desktop application, as shown on Scott Hanselman's aptly titled "How to call WinRT APIs in Windows 8 from C# Desktop Applications" blog post), so the restriction on releasing desktop apps that could run on Windows RT is a largely arbitrary one enforced by Microsoft.

qbob
on Jan 8, 2013

Indeed. A windowed host for a WinRT program with additional multitasking modes is not rocket science, its absence is a design decision.

I answer a Skype call and my movie making stops. Or worse still, my video recording stops. Duh. The whole point about Windows 8 is content creation not just reacting, browsing and consuming.

AlexKven
on Jan 7, 2013

I think that then next Fixing Windows 8 article should be about aero glass and personalization. I think the personalization settings in Windows 8 should be restored to that of the Release Preview.

bradwestness
on Jan 7, 2013

What about aero glass?

pthurrott
on Jan 7, 2013

Aero glass is gone for a good reason: It was killing battery life. Microsoft clearly made the right decision on that one. And while not everyone agrees with this, I think the flat new look in Windows 8 is more attractive.

inreasonsimage
on Jan 8, 2013

You can personalize the Windows 8 desktop to have a frosted glass look, which is similar to Aero. It's nice. Windows 8 has some great new features such as improved security, faster performance, and the explorer ribbon. It's a shame that those improvements are negated by Windows 8's failures (the Metro design language and the Start Screen).

MarkH
on Jan 7, 2013

Frankly I would be thrilled if there were a way to OMIT the desktop apps from the store. The whole mess just seems rather cluttered to me. I respect that the store is an appropriate place to list these apps and I wholeheartedly agree that if security enforcements were put in place as Paul suggests, it would be *fantastic*...but when what you REALLY want is a metro app, the endless scrolling of Wild Tangent games or what-have-you, each with a "click here to go to developer's website" amounts to little more than endless ads.

Essentially, I'm reiterating Paul's point in his "Fixing Windows 8, Part 5: Built-in Apps" article, in which he essentially states (and I'm paraphrasing) "it's a mess."

qbob
on Jan 8, 2013

Yes, a HIGH priority to be able to just view the Windows store apps.

John Carroll
on Jan 7, 2013

I've thought that they should offer desktop apps as well, though I don't think it means exposing Windows Store apps to the wild and unconstrained WIN32 universe. It should just be another activation mode within the WinRT framework. XAML can certainly make mouse-friendly, complex interfaces, though you wouldn't want to display that to users in Metro-mode. Metro apps should also be visible on the desktop, as a Windowed object.

In fact, what would be really cool is if all your Metro apps are open in the taskbar on the Desktop, albeit the UI / view shifts when you go there. So, in Metro mode, IE is the normal Metro IE. When you go to the desktop, however, that same app is visible on the taskbar (as an open app, with all the tabs shown and the current URL and scroll position correct). Maybe it would be the same app that receives an activation state change notification so it displays a different view. Not sure, but it would rid us of this strange bifurcation between desktop and Metro. Metro apps would just be desktop apps (and vice versa) but in a different view mode imposed by the container.

The desktop IS important when you are sitting down with a keyboard and mouse. Letting apps live in both universes seamlessly (and simultaneously) would truly take the hybrid experience to the next level.

Some apps might not have a Metro "view" to display. They won't be launchable in Metro mode. Other apps might only have a Metro mode. But apps that have both should support both, I think, from the SAME app.

rx78
on Jan 7, 2013

Realistically speaking, we shouldn't expect MS to put a lot of energy into merging desktop and metro, as end game is still moving apps into metro sandbox. But having existing desktop applications in the metro store would hugely benefit desktop users, and they are who most frustrated right now and need love. Just let me buy and download regular normal win32 installer, that all I'm asking. I guess it presents some legal challenges, but MS can find a lawyer or two to work it over, can't they? Few improvements to install process could make it even sweeter and push metro haters to upgrade, without much compromise and effort from MS.

Formfiller
on Jan 7, 2013

Windows8: People post huge lists of failings all over the net and the fanbots so far weren't able to crack those criticisms down. Isn't that worrying? Sure, there were always detractors, especially coming from the FOSS brigade, but never before was a Windows OS this hated by the Windows devs and admins themselves. Something is definitely different this time. I can't remember when MS censored posts to such extend like Sinofsky did on his blog (or ever in fact). I can't remember when there was such a silence on Microsoft's part on the issues. And comparing the failtrain of W8 to Vista is hopelessly naive: Comparing Vista to Windows 8 is flattering Windows 8. Vista's problems were accidental bugs and issues (it's not like the Vista team wanted those speed problems), while pretty much all flaws of 8 aren't bugs, but are by design and put on purpose. That's far worse! It's pretty much guaranteed that bugs get fixed, but this quagmire..?

Let's take the metro menu: All the links to the document folders, control panel, power button etc. are randomly spread apart and you need to hunt them all down. The hierarchy menu (reachable through hidden "All Programs") is even more confusing now than it was with the Start Menu. Despite having the whole screen at their disposal, they have somehow managed to make it more worse - it's an intimidating wall of text that scares far more than the old "All Programs" ever did.

Far more things are hidden, it's less central. There's lots of scrolling involved (far more nauseating than scrolling the start menu, because the whole screen scrolls this time), handling with the search results is a mess, there are no MRU lists, installing new programs shuffles that thing around and many times barfs dozens of items on it, because there are no folders. You have the jarring context switch, you have no indication that it is searchable (yet is is), and on and on. The only improvement is that you have a bit more items at glance before you need to scroll around. Whoopie doo

And it's not only about the metro-menu and all the headache that brings, it's the whole approach. For example the darn "apps" themselves: How hard could it have been to include a "Pro mode" (with scary "You're on your own now!" warnings if needed) or something like that which would allow sideloading? They could still have their store and still make the enthusiasts and "Pros" happy. It would have been easy to make the Metro-Notro-Win8stylestoreapps-whatever more appealing to the laptop and desktop users. How about more features availble the bigger the screen is? "Windows has detected you have a 24 inch screen, multi-tasking and windowing of Metro apps is enabled now". Stuff like that wouldn't be too hard, freeware like Bluestacks does it! But no, Microsoft has chosen the most limiting and existing-customers-repulsing way possible. That is why there are complaints and bad feeling all around. That's where the "walled garden" and "dictatorial" accusations come from. MS was a quite comfortable choice between the strict Apple- and the free-for-all linux world, pretty much the golden middle, now they are doing their darndest to change themselves into a totally redundant MicroApple and this generates ill felings. The many game developers were annoyed for good reasons IMHO. And let's not start on the limitations of the metro apps.. Oh sure, they aren't forcing metro down on you, except they do.

Now let's forget the start screen, just open up an audio file on the desktop.. BAM - You're on a full screen monstrosity, with "parental advisory" graphics from obscene rap album covers and stuff like that. With no obvious way to get out of it. PROGRESS. They wanted to simplify Windows 8. That's why instead of clicking on an easy to spot bright red X, (that's faaar to power user for the common idiot to understand) you need to "grab" the application by its invisible head and drag it down the drain so that it can disappear. And if you managed to close it, you're back on the metro screen instead of the desktop (where you started). Just fabulous! So just playing a darn audio file means switching through completely different GUI environments and playing a mini-adventure. Same is happening when you open up pictures and movie files. Yes, that's what I call a great user experience right there. Then there are other nerve wreckers like the DVD codec issue and loony bin decisions like WMP not playing them even if you have the codecs installed. Not to forget the über-retarded default apps like mail, bonkered Sype...

Sure, you can hack-around to link WMP back to the files etc. but shouldn't an "upgrade" make stuff.. you know, better?! How's stuff like that a good default experience? In the first beta versions, the welcome screen could not be clicked away. You had to drag it away with the mouse! Totally insane. That's one of the very few things they have fixed, but the fact that something like that made it into an alpha version, yet alone beta, makes it clear what kind of carelessness the "design" of Win8 truly was/is. I am pretty sure the main reason the server got metro too is to prevent "power users" running Server 2012 as a desktop replacement.

All that is just NOT comparable to the previous versions. Never before were there such regressions in usability of Windows and "feel" of the company. You cannot will that fact just away.

Then there's the whole subplot about their handling of developers and the whole Silverlight affair to promote the W8 craplets - killing SL just when it was going strong as LOB tool. The amount of badwill they have created with this OS among their (former) allies, devs and supporters is just staggering.

And if the PC/laptop market is collapsing, why is the Macbook market going great? Because they haven't crippled their OS maybe? No one is going to do productivity stuff on a tablet UI darn it. They should have completely separated both worlds. Both uncripppled UIs on the same device, switchable, would work (connect your tablet to a keyboard, mouse and display, switch to the uncrippled desktop -> you have a productivity device) but this FrankenOS abomination they did instead suits just about NOBODOY. Metro gets in your way on the Desktop and the Desktop gets in your way on metro (many settings are only reachable through the desktop CP etc.). It's a mess, pure and simple. And stop dreaming about this crazy idea about a touch revolution on the PC, it's a pipe dream because your damn arms are going to fall off using it this way. It's a nice gimmick that people will forget within two days that it is even there. It's as if MS would have designed the OS mainly around the voice recognition feature in Windows 7. Pure, raw, unhindered MADNESS.

bdegrande
on Jan 7, 2013

I'm not knocking this post, there are some very good points here. but I quite often do productivity tasks on a touch interface (iPad). I used my fantasy basketball spreadsheet at my draft this year on the iPad rather than a laptop, word processing works fine, I even do audio and photo editing, and there are types of apps, like mind mapping, that work far better on a touch interface than mouse and keyboard.

As the owner of a tablet running RT (Asus Vivo Tab RT), I will say that the touch interface on Office (which does use the desktop) is not great, but that is due to the software, not the OS, and I don't see any reason why productivity apps couldn't work well on the platform.

Nitz Walsh
on Jan 10, 2013

Now there's an epic rant. :) Agreed pretty much completely though.

I understand that creating a "new" API at the 1.0 stage entails some patience in terms of expecting the fit and finish to be pristine, but what's so frustrating about Windows 8, and MS in general lately, is this constant game of re-invention for the sake of...well, it appears largely branding. Products or features get to a state where they are polished, then are deprecated.

Windows 7 is a good example. It was highly reviewed both by end users and mainstream publications upon release, as it was one of the most polished MS OS's ever. Sure, a lot of that was just due to hardware marching along and OEM getting their driver situation up to par, but a lot of also was that Windows 7 just looked and felt...*cohesive*, like it was written by a highly focused singular team. Old interface elements were finally cleaned up and streamlined, performance was excellent for the wide variety of hardware it ran on, battery life and sleep/shutdown were significantly improved, the product matrix was finally sane with the more expensive versions being a superset or the less expensive versions (ie: Media Center being in 7 Pro, not removed just because "Hey it's a business PC, we don't do that stuff!" - so then don't use it!), etc.

I'm not going to echo what you said about Win8 as I largely agree with it, but it goes beyond that. Look at recent "releases" of MS software:

1) Skydrive. Remember Mesh/Live Sync? This was a tool that had no peer. PC->PC syncing that could easily work through most corporate firewalls. Ability to sync any folder of any size amongst a large number of PC's without going through the Internet if you had cumbersome data caps, as most do. An easy way to remote control PC's - great for support. I loved it, evangelized it.

Then along came Skydrive. Hey, cloud support - great! Can't wait until they're "integrated".

So now mesh is gone. Skydrive is the one tool...but where's the integration? Basically, Skydrive 'replaced' Mesh by Mesh simply not being available anymore. Skydrive works well as a cloud service and the web interface is awesome, but no peer->peer syncing without avoiding the internet, so you're stuck by using your limited bandwidth (internet cable upload speeds are atrocious), and the size limit you have on your Skydrive account. No more easy remote control of PC's. The "upgrade" removed what made Mesh great.

So...maybe in a future version of Skydrive we'll get those features back? How many months/years until we're back at the level we were before this great "upgrade"? Seriously, I have yet to see a Windows tech forum that doesn't have at least one thread asking for Mesh replacements (Cubby seems to be the front runner).

2) Media player. Zune was not perfect, but in many ways it was the most impressive piece of consumer software MS had produced. So, so prefer it to iTunes, and even the latest release the several-year old Zune still looks and operates years beyond Apple's offering.

So, MS needs to really get a toehold in the smartphone wars. Winphone 8 is launched (yet, another reboot)...and the replacement for Zune? Nothing. Well, not entirely - MS releases a very, *very* flaky "Sync" application which contains maybe 10% of Zune's previous functionality - when it works, that is. It's ugly, spartan, and ironically seems to work best when working with *iTunes*. So, how many years until the Sync, or a desktop Xbox Music client is released that gets close to what Zune had for years?

3) Office 2013. Related to Win8 in general as the regressed search functionality is a big beef I have with the OS in general - Outlook 2013 emails will no longer be searchable through Explorer. You must launch Outlook to search for them. Why? No reason given. I expected future search capabilities in Windows OS's to be *more* comprehensive and intelligent - grouping more, federating more search sources in the same place without requiring you to launch apps, offering super-fast previews like OSX does with QuickLook, etc. Another rather large regression.

I just don't understand these moves. 1 step forward, 2 steps back it seems.

BGBrereton
on Jan 7, 2013

I think the basic problem with this idea is that it assumes that an application developer just needs to flip a switch in Visual Studio, recompile and out pops an ARM version of the application for Windows RT. In theory the same should apply to creating 64-bit Windows desktop applications from existing 32-bit applications. In practice it takes significantly more effort as all of the places where the code inadvertently assumes a particular platform has to be found and fixed.

So Microsoft would have to persuade application developer to invest the effort to port existing applications where the end result would be a new code variant to maintain that would only run on the Windows RT desktop. I imagine this would be even more difficult to sell to application developers than persuading them to port to WinRT and produce "metro" apps that work on both Windows 8 and Windows RT.

Shopko
on Jan 7, 2013

As a developer, Windows 8 Metro is a mess. Performance problems with WinRT abound, and as Paul mentioned in part 5 of this series, Metro is not designed at all for "professional" applications.

I've come to realize that every single person I've talked to who enjoys Windows 8 only uses their computer for very simple tasks. Playing games, checking e-mail, browsing the web. People who use their computers for more advanced tasks, like Visual Studio, Office tools development, etc. almost universally dislike the direction Microsoft is headed in Windows 8. It's reasonable clear that the goal is to get rid of the desktop entirely, but this has the unfortunate side effect of alienating power users and professional developers.

I'm a hobbyist and a tinkerer (and a software engineer by profession), and I've had a blast playing with my Raspberry Pi. I enjoy building stuff with my Lego Mindstorms kit. I am the exact opposite kind of person Microsoft had in mind when they designed Windows 8, so I've moved on to Ubuntu Linux. It's more difficult to set up, and requires more experience with computers to use. But it's also clearly geared toward power users and developers.

So, Microsoft has an interesting dilemma. I used to write software for Windows because it was the most ubiquitous platform available. Now I write software for iOS and Android because those are the platforms with the largest install base. On the desktop, I write software for the fun of it and release it all for free. The Ubuntu Software Store caters to developers like me. I suspect that I am not alone, as the designers and engineers I work with have also moved toward the mobile world and open-source projects for fun.

Maybe it's time for "Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Ubuntu"? :)

alvatrus
on Jan 7, 2013

I disagree with you here, Paul. (I think.)
The Metro and Desktop must be kept as separate as possible. I think we're in an (extended) transition period right now towards a simpler, user first, use of computers. In the end, we don't need (or shouldn't need) our defraggers, optimisers, Norton commanders, etc. These tools have lost their purpose almost a decade ago.
Instead, Microsoft must show the world how to handle the Metro interface by releasing Office for Metro, like it did with OneNote. They need to create the idiom and show their vision for Metro.
It must be clear that the Desktop is to become a legacy platform, and mixing Desktop and Metro apps in the store clouds that message.

jwebber
on Jan 7, 2013

Don't you think that the presence of ARM references in some .NET libraries (not WinRT compatible ones, at that) seems quite indicative of such a change occurring? Take a look at the Microsoft "Roslyn" CTP for examples: Roslyn.Compilers.Platform.Arm!

Formfiller
on Jan 7, 2013

Found something funny:

The bestselling notebook on Amazon Germany.. runs DOS! (FreeDOS)

Top 10 list:

http://www.amazon.de/gp/bestsellers/computers/427957031/ref=pd_ts_zgc_co...

Asus F55A-SX091D:

http://www.amazon.de/F55A-SX091D-Notebook-Intel-Pentium-500GB/dp/B00A2M2...

It was released on November 6, 2012 - just in time for for the W8 release - that's what I call desperate measures!

Screenshots:

http://s2.postimage.org/kfxowusd5/DOSbook1.png
http://s2.postimage.org/mztbqyfx5/Dos_Notebook2.png

And yes, it's true. Here's the product spec, in PDF format, look out for the term "Free DOS":

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/814pEoUWuHS.pdf

You know a Windows version is bad if such a product is the Number One bestseller. There is a law in Germany that allows the re-selling of OEM Windows versions. That means you can buy "refurbished" Win7 versions very cheaply (they cost around $50). It's very likely that people buy this DOS notebook and put one of these Win7 OEM versions on it.

So huge is the disgust towards Windows 8 - people (lots of people to make it the number 1 bestseller) are going through such hoops to avoid it.

Nighthawk-f22
on Jan 7, 2013

I would like to see two install options.
1: Tablet/smart phone mode: Install windows like it is now.
2: Desktop mode:
Start Menu+ apps runs from desktop in fullscreen or windows mode with Minimize,Maximize and close buttons.
Apps Titles can be pinned on the desktop. like gadgets in windows 7
Areo transparent can be enabled or disabled

rx78
on Jan 8, 2013

A while ago Wallmart, if I'm not mistaken, sell cheep PC with Linux, most ended up running pirated version of Windows. Nothing new here, pretty sure some of those DOS machines will also happily run win8 - or whatever version resourceful buyer has on hands.

Formfiller
on Jan 8, 2013

They most likely WON'T run Windows 8, because Windows 8 still hasn't hit the "refurbished" market in Germany. As I said, Win7 costs around $50 here thanks to a special OEM law:

http://www.amazon.de/Windows-professional-bit-Reinstallations-DVD-multil...

There are still no such offers for Win8 (the cheap Win8 upgrade can't be installed on OS-less computers, in opposite to these Win7 versions).

The fact that this notebook is the number one bestseller, and not some W8 model, means that it's only bought in masses exactly for that above mentioned purpose.

scientificbob
on Jan 8, 2013

I've said from day 1 (read: the first build event where win8 metro api's were first presented): it was a mistake to NOT offer a "new" application platform (based on WPF) that would allow us to create "metrofied" desktop apps that are distributed through the store and run on ARM as well as x86/64.

It should have been there from the beginning imo.

Plenty of ways to go about it...
Allowing "dual apps" like desktop-metro browsers for example. "metro enabled desktop apps".

It would also open up the new windows features to desktop applications: integration with search charm, share, settings, a live tile, etc.

Frankly, I have trouble wrapping my head around why they did not include this from the get-go.

Here's hoping that that is what "windows blue" is meant for.

pthurrott
on Jan 8, 2013

So, just playing Devil's Advocate, I think it's fair to point out that creating a major new platform like Windows Runtime is very difficult and getting it right for v1 next to impossible. While I agree that some kind of transitionary mode, like Apple offered to Mac Classic devs in OS X ("Carbon"? I think) would have been ideal, or at least better, it's not clear they had the ability to even do such a thing. The "Fix" series is sort of about making it right after the fact. I think what they did just to ship 1.0 was fine. Now they need to keep going.

mosan129
on Jan 8, 2013

Formfiller...Selling PCs and Laptops with FreeDOS has nothing to do with how Windows 8 is selling. Different countries have different policies on how they handle selling hardware. I'm currently in Thailand, and there is no requirement to sell hardware with an OS installed. As such, you can purchase almost any hardware over here, and resellers will provide you with whatever OS you wish. Additionally, you can install yourself, or they'll do it for you. This not only keeps the cost of the hardware down it also more freedom of choice. And as the name implies, FreeDOS in always included free of charge!

Formfiller
on Jan 9, 2013

Germany isn't some third world country. Free DOS PCs ranking Nr.1 on Amazon is NOT a common occurence. Before W8, this would have been almost impossible.

paul4iw
on Jan 8, 2013

There should be no difference between metro and desktop apps. As a desktop user it makes no sense to me to have separate Metro apps that come installed with my laptop and offering a store which only serve these. A single app should be able to operate in either touch mode or mouse and keyboard windowed mode depending upon the type of input received.

The same principle should also apply to the entire Windows OS. The UI should automatically switch to touch mode when it detects a touch input and desktop mode when mouse input is detected. Such an adaptive UI could seamlessly animate between either mode, with icons enlarging and the UI simplifying when touch input detected. Superior to the current mess of Windows 8.

eboyhan
on Jan 10, 2013

In theory you are correct. In practice going forward (long term) only winrt API apps will be supported.

Given the inability to provide winrt with all win32 functionality in this go round, MS has elected to create the "desktop sandbox" where (the essentially deprecated apps reliant on win32) can be run. There might have been other ways to segregate win32 apps while maintaining backwards capability, but this is the way they chose to do it -- it enables them to control and manage the transition from win32 to winrt better -- an essentially MS internal consideration.

For this approach to be successful IMV they are going to have to ramp up the addition of win32 features in winrt quite rapidly. The big challenge is going to be getting the big 3rd party desktop app developers to undertake this conversion effort.

Years back they attempted to get these same vendors to adopt .Net/CLR dev approaches -- they were not successful in doing so.

MS also has some work to do so that a dev can write code for an app once and have it compile and run in any of the (currently) three Windows environments (Wph8, WRT, W8).

eboyhan
on Jan 10, 2013

There's another factor to consider when contemplating how to support "desktop" apps going forward, and that is that winrt impose some very radically different notions about how apps should be coded.

Peter Bright has written an excellent article (which you may have seen) on the history behind, and the content of winrt:
http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/windows-8-and-winrt-everything-o...

Two things jump out at me: all IO must be asynchronous, and inter (or infra) app communications via memory are made difficult (if not impossible). These changes come about IMV to deal with the lack of oompf in current ARM processors (asynchronity will give at least the illusion "fast and fluid" of responsiveness), and to foster more reliance on cloud services for essential functionality.

Whatever the merits of the coding philosophy changes inherent in winrt may be, they present a tremendous challenge to MS in convincing the big 3rd party desktop app developers to undertake a conversion to winrt.

eboyhan
on Jan 10, 2013

I think the problem here is how you define "desktop" app. MS has a very specific not very intuitive way on doing this. If the app uses any of the win32 or other older API interfaces that will NOT be carried forward, then it is a desktop app. If the solution for desktop apps on windows RT is to expose more of the win32 API there (some win32 API calls are already being carried forward), then that defeats MS's attempt to replace the bulk of win32 with winrt calls; and that will be an uphill struggle.

If on the other hand the proposal is to foster the conversion/development of desktop-like apps using only winrt and the few carry forward win32 calls, then that is more feasible, and is probably where MS is going long term. Much needs to be added to winrt for this to be feasible -- it remains to be seen how quickly this will happen.

red77star
on Jan 11, 2013

The thing is that any OS built on ARM is waste of time cause AMD and Intel are coming with CPU which will perform way way better with the same or better battery saving. Windows RT is the biggest waste MS did in the past couple years. In my opinion name Windows RT should be kept and that should be the current Windows 8 with no Desktop. And Desktop version should not have any Metro shit in it. MS would have a winner there. Two devices PC and PM (Personal Mobile) do not have to have same interface across but rather common feature to be able to use same information on both devices.

In nutshell:

Windows 8 32bit should not be released -> waste of time, money and resources
Windows 8 should only be released in 64bit flavor No Metro Screen, flat interface is fine the way currect Desktop is.

Windows RT should only be released to support x86-x64 devices with no Desktop but just Metro Screen.

OS based on ARM made sense 3-4 years ago but since MS was late in the game, they should get it done right for the sake of future of the company.

virginityrocks
on Mar 3, 2013

I believe the ultimate way to fix the Start Screen is to have the option of tiles being compacted lists (Think list view in Explorer), with the ability to sort "tiles" by name, date, size, access, and usage frequency.

Also, for individual groups of tiles (and lists), have each group scrollable, instead of scrolling all groups simultaneously.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use