3 ms·
They're definitely going in the direction of the walled garden strategy, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. For the vast majority of users, computers are saf
by mohamedattahri 9y ago
They're definitely going in the direction of the walled garden strategy, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. For the vast majority of users, computers are safer with walled gardens. For the more advanced users, developers can always offer their apps through a different distribution channel.
In the case of Windows in particular, it's a chance to leave the installation wizards, the registry and the DLL hell behind and use the packaged model that macOS adopted from the get go.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- archagon 9y agoWorld-changing technologies like p2p filesharing, bitcoin, app stores, and even the web itself wouldn't have taken off if most personal computers were walled gardens. What future innovations will never even be given a chance at life? Will we have to depend on the big corporate players to move computing forward?
- pishpash 9y agoThere is always Loonix and neckbeards.
- snuxoll 9y agoCentennial (read, non-UWP) apps can be published to the Windows Store and don't get any sandboxing beyond registry virtualization by default. Microsoft lives and dies by backwards compatibility, they're not going to kill off Win32 - they may very well push for the Windows Store to be the primary source for applications with traditional installers being blocked by default though.
- hoistbypetard 9y agoUnless those non-UWP apps are browsers that use non-Microsoft rendering or javascript engines. I don't think that's a dealbreaker, especially when they'll let people trade from 10S to 10Pro for free. But it's a pretty big caveat that got added very quietly.