12 ms·

I was surprised to read this. I assumed that Windows 8 only contained the 'desktop' to give developers time to convert their apps to work on metro and that Micr

I was surprised to read this. I assumed that Windows 8 only contained the 'desktop' to give developers time to convert their apps to work on metro and that Microsoft would deprecate the desktop in Windows 9 or 10. If they did do that Windows would become a closed platform. With this restriction in Windows 8 Windows is seemingly more closed than OS X. Apple restricts certain features like iCloud to App Store apps but restricting apps from using the main UI on your OS is another matter.

facorreia 14y ago
Microsoft is obsessed about backward compatibility. They have to be to continue being the dominant force in the corporate market. They won't even have a choice not to support desk-top style apps for the next 20 years, even if at some point they will run in some kind of virtualized environment.
- niggler 14y ago
  Funny thing: lots of businesses still use windows XP. Backward compatibility is nice but running XP is much better than hoping stuff will work on windows 7 or 8. 20 years from now I wouldnt be surprised to see XP still used ...
  - facorreia 14y ago
    For that there is the so Microsoft-named "Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Virtualization". http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/enterprise/products-and-technologies/mdop/med-v.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/enterprise/products-a...
  - carlisle_ 14y ago
    >hoping That's why you test - so you know whether or not something works. Additionally, there are significantly more important factors to consider than whether or a particular OS runs your application.
    - niggler 14y ago
      As a business owner with a process that has worked for X>0 years, unless there is a very compelling reason to do so, you don't want to risk disrupting your business with an upgrade of any core piece, especially the operating system. Testing is fine and dandy, and breaks are acceptable in some circles, but in mission critical situations you can't be as frivolous.
      - carlisle_ 14y ago
        There are reasons why you would want to upgrade, security, forward-compatibility, and product support. Since XP is becoming completely unsupported in a year, that's a very compelling reason. Your last sentence doesn't really make any sense. If you're testing thoroughly you shouldn't run into any issues that are completely breaking.
- niggler 14y ago
  Funny thing: lots of businesses still use windows XP. Backward compatibility is nice but running XP is much better than hoping stuff will work on windows 7 or 8. 20 years from now I wouldnt be surprised to see XP still used ...
y0ghur7_xxx 14y ago
I think Apples long term plan is the same: make a closed ecosystem on the Desktop exactly like the one on iOS. There is no incentive that I can see for them to keep it open. It worked well on mobile, why not do the same on the desktop? But of course it's only speculation at this point.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  How will one develop apps in such an environment?
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    Similarly to how you do on Windows 8 just now, I would imagine. XCode would work fine, can compile apps, run them for debugging locally. You just can't debug apps without getting a developer key, and that developer key would only be valid for your machine.
    - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
      The grandparent described the environment being "exactly" like iOS. That would mean no terminal, for example. It would mean no 3rd party dev tools that can do much of anything (except SSH into another computer and do dev there). No Homebrew. Web development would be impossible - all web devs would leave. Sounds like a lot of negatives for Apple and few positives. Makes more sense to make it difficult for common users to do the things they don't want them to do.
      - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
        Sure, the default environment would be. But I expect they would do something where, if you had a paid developer license (or some sort of free "local debugging" license), they would unlock the Terminal and some form of IDE.
      - y0ghur7_xxx 14y ago
        > The grandparent described the environment being "exactly" like iOS. Let me make my point clearer: I was talking about the ability of downloading and installing apps freely from the internet. What I meant was a closed ecosystem where you can only use approved apps from the app store without the ability to install apps from third partys. That does not mean that you can't use the terminal or XCode (if those are approved apps), or get a "developer license" to "unlock" your Mac.
MatthewPhillips 14y ago
I think it will be more along the lines with how they got rid of DOS. The command prompt still exists, it's just hidden away. You can't exit windows to dos like you used to be able to do. Same thing will happen with the desktop. Today on the Metro start screen the desktop has a first-row tile but I imagine eventually it will have no tile and you'll have to search for it. Effectively making it not exist for the common user. But Microsoft is still investing a lot of money in desktop software. Not user-facing software. But much of their code assumes more capabilities than what WinRT allows. All of the developer tools, for example. Think about a memory diagnostic tools, that is of course impossible in WinRT. Powershell is impossible in WinRT.
- mbell 14y ago
  > I think it will be more along the lines with how they got rid of DOS. The command prompt still exists, it's just hidden away. You can't exit windows to dos like you used to be able to do. DOS isn't a command prompt its an operating system. DOS wasn't 'hidden away' its gone. Windows 3.1 was really just a GUI running on top of MS-DOS. 95, 98, and ME used MS-DOS as a bootloader to get windows running, basically flipping the CPU into protected mode then handing it over to windows. The WinNT family wasn't built on top of DOS at all but rather has a standalone kernal. DOS programs were only supported by a virtual machine (and aren't supported at all in 64bit windows, DOS is completely gone there). I don't see much connection at all between DOS and Metro, Metro is just a UI.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    Calm down, I understand all of that. My point is that they didn't take away the functionality of DOS, and it mostly exists to this day. Even the default Visual Studio project is a command line program (last time I checked). I see the same future for the desktop.
    - homosaur 14y ago
      By that analogy, only Microsoft blessed developers could make desktop apps and all others who wanted to distribute independently will be forced to use the command line.
powertower 14y ago
> I assumed that Windows 8 only contained the 'desktop' to give developers time to convert their apps to work on metro and that Microsoft would deprecate the desktop in Windows 9 or 10. Where did you get this idea from? The Desktop is here to stay, because it's the only way to run real applications that need a bit more than touch gestures. Let me help you out... Metro -> For Consumers (silly games, twitter, browsing internet, and buying shit) Desktop -> For Producers (VS.NET, Office, dev and server stuff, real applications, etc) Windows 8 basically is one OS for both Tablets and PCs. That's all there is to it.
- WayneDB 14y ago
  I think the idea comes from observing Microsoft's own behavior: - They foist the Metro UI on you by starting your "desktop" OS directly to that new UI as if to say "not only is this new UI not going away, but we're going to force you to look at it." - It's all they can talk about, within the realm of UI tech. - When Microsoft finds a new thing to talk about, they stop talking about the old things and the old things simply die off or at the very least, receive very little new development. So, the idea that Windows 8 only contains the desktop to give developers time to convert their apps to work on metro may not be very far from the truth.
Aaronontheweb 14y ago
Former Micrsoftie (left in August) and founder of a startup that exclusively targets Win8 developers here. There's some FUD here that I need to clear up. 1. All Metro / Windows Store apps have to be distributed through the Windows Store for mass distribution - that much is true. There are good reasons for this - namely it saves you the trouble of having to write installers for three separate hardware architectures (ARM, X86, X64) and makes it comparatively low-friction to distribute your app compared to traditional desktop applications. 2. It's pretty easy to side-load applications on a one-to-one basis for developers who are running non-ARM devices; you can package an app automatically from Visual Studio with a self-install PowerShell script and installing an app is as easy as emailing someone a zip file with the app package + install script. This was how we tested apps among distributed teams internally at Microsoft and how all of the early third-party developers did it. I only did this on X64 devices so I'm not sure if there's support for X86 and I'm pretty sure ARM doesn't support this. 3. Enterprises have the ability to create their own bolt-on to the app store using Active Directory to ensure that all of their employees can get access to private, line-of-business Metro apps that they don't want exposed in the public app store. 4. Traditional desktop applications, non-Metro ones, can still be distributed the old fashioned way. My previous employer before Microsoft has no plans to put its desktop software in the Windows Store and frankly I don't think it will affect them much. For the desktop, look at Metro as a way to have some content-focused apps and games that come to life directly on your desktop through live tiles. Don't look at them as replacements for heavy-weight, traditional desktop applications. That's not their point. Windows isn't going to be a closed platform - if anything Metro makes Windows more accessible to a larger number of developers. Shipping a traditional desktop application is an epic pain in the ass compared to shipping a Metro-style app. Metro makes it a lot easier for most developers to sell native apps on Windows.
- antidoh 14y ago
  "Metro makes it a lot easier for most developers to sell native apps on Windows." As long as Microsoft approves your app. I want my politically incorrect apps, full of boobs, farts, surveillance evading tools and bomb-making instructions.
  - 14y ago
brudgers 14y ago
The notion of Microsoft getting rid of the desktop in favor of a locked down OS which only allows applications which running in sandboxes will make sense when Visual Studio is converted to do so. Or to put it another way, don't expect Microsoft to change the dogfood's dog food's to something they cannot eat. As a corollary, Windows 8 applications and RT devices will be suitable for the sorts of corporate tasks non-programmers at Microsoft perform in the course of their work.

facorreia 14y ago

Microsoft is obsessed about backward compatibility. They have to be to continue being the dominant force in the corporate market. They won't even have a choice not to support desk-top style apps for the next 20 years, even if at some point they will run in some kind of virtualized environment.

niggler 14y ago
Funny thing: lots of businesses still use windows XP. Backward compatibility is nice but running XP is much better than hoping stuff will work on windows 7 or 8. 20 years from now I wouldnt be surprised to see XP still used ...
- facorreia 14y ago
  For that there is the so Microsoft-named "Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Virtualization". http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/enterprise/products-and-technologies/mdop/med-v.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/enterprise/products-a...
- carlisle_ 14y ago
  >hoping That's why you test - so you know whether or not something works. Additionally, there are significantly more important factors to consider than whether or a particular OS runs your application.
  - niggler 14y ago
    As a business owner with a process that has worked for X>0 years, unless there is a very compelling reason to do so, you don't want to risk disrupting your business with an upgrade of any core piece, especially the operating system. Testing is fine and dandy, and breaks are acceptable in some circles, but in mission critical situations you can't be as frivolous.
    - carlisle_ 14y ago
      There are reasons why you would want to upgrade, security, forward-compatibility, and product support. Since XP is becoming completely unsupported in a year, that's a very compelling reason. Your last sentence doesn't really make any sense. If you're testing thoroughly you shouldn't run into any issues that are completely breaking.
niggler 14y ago
Funny thing: lots of businesses still use windows XP. Backward compatibility is nice but running XP is much better than hoping stuff will work on windows 7 or 8. 20 years from now I wouldnt be surprised to see XP still used ...

y0ghur7_xxx 14y ago

I think Apples long term plan is the same: make a closed ecosystem on the Desktop exactly like the one on iOS. There is no incentive that I can see for them to keep it open. It worked well on mobile, why not do the same on the desktop? But of course it's only speculation at this point.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
How will one develop apps in such an environment?
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Similarly to how you do on Windows 8 just now, I would imagine. XCode would work fine, can compile apps, run them for debugging locally. You just can't debug apps without getting a developer key, and that developer key would only be valid for your machine.
  - MatthewPhillips 14y ago
    The grandparent described the environment being "exactly" like iOS. That would mean no terminal, for example. It would mean no 3rd party dev tools that can do much of anything (except SSH into another computer and do dev there). No Homebrew. Web development would be impossible - all web devs would leave. Sounds like a lot of negatives for Apple and few positives. Makes more sense to make it difficult for common users to do the things they don't want them to do.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
      Sure, the default environment would be. But I expect they would do something where, if you had a paid developer license (or some sort of free "local debugging" license), they would unlock the Terminal and some form of IDE.
    - y0ghur7_xxx 14y ago
      > The grandparent described the environment being "exactly" like iOS. Let me make my point clearer: I was talking about the ability of downloading and installing apps freely from the internet. What I meant was a closed ecosystem where you can only use approved apps from the app store without the ability to install apps from third partys. That does not mean that you can't use the terminal or XCode (if those are approved apps), or get a "developer license" to "unlock" your Mac.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

I think it will be more along the lines with how they got rid of DOS. The command prompt still exists, it's just hidden away. You can't exit windows to dos like you used to be able to do. Same thing will happen with the desktop. Today on the Metro start screen the desktop has a first-row tile but I imagine eventually it will have no tile and you'll have to search for it. Effectively making it not exist for the common user. But Microsoft is still investing a lot of money in desktop software. Not user-facing software. But much of their code assumes more capabilities than what WinRT allows. All of the developer tools, for example. Think about a memory diagnostic tools, that is of course impossible in WinRT. Powershell is impossible in WinRT.

mbell 14y ago
> I think it will be more along the lines with how they got rid of DOS. The command prompt still exists, it's just hidden away. You can't exit windows to dos like you used to be able to do. DOS isn't a command prompt its an operating system. DOS wasn't 'hidden away' its gone. Windows 3.1 was really just a GUI running on top of MS-DOS. 95, 98, and ME used MS-DOS as a bootloader to get windows running, basically flipping the CPU into protected mode then handing it over to windows. The WinNT family wasn't built on top of DOS at all but rather has a standalone kernal. DOS programs were only supported by a virtual machine (and aren't supported at all in 64bit windows, DOS is completely gone there). I don't see much connection at all between DOS and Metro, Metro is just a UI.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  Calm down, I understand all of that. My point is that they didn't take away the functionality of DOS, and it mostly exists to this day. Even the default Visual Studio project is a command line program (last time I checked). I see the same future for the desktop.
  - homosaur 14y ago
    By that analogy, only Microsoft blessed developers could make desktop apps and all others who wanted to distribute independently will be forced to use the command line.

powertower 14y ago

> I assumed that Windows 8 only contained the 'desktop' to give developers time to convert their apps to work on metro and that Microsoft would deprecate the desktop in Windows 9 or 10. Where did you get this idea from? The Desktop is here to stay, because it's the only way to run real applications that need a bit more than touch gestures. Let me help you out... Metro -> For Consumers (silly games, twitter, browsing internet, and buying shit) Desktop -> For Producers (VS.NET, Office, dev and server stuff, real applications, etc) Windows 8 basically is one OS for both Tablets and PCs. That's all there is to it.

WayneDB 14y ago
I think the idea comes from observing Microsoft's own behavior: - They foist the Metro UI on you by starting your "desktop" OS directly to that new UI as if to say "not only is this new UI not going away, but we're going to force you to look at it." - It's all they can talk about, within the realm of UI tech. - When Microsoft finds a new thing to talk about, they stop talking about the old things and the old things simply die off or at the very least, receive very little new development. So, the idea that Windows 8 only contains the desktop to give developers time to convert their apps to work on metro may not be very far from the truth.

Aaronontheweb 14y ago

Former Micrsoftie (left in August) and founder of a startup that exclusively targets Win8 developers here. There's some FUD here that I need to clear up. 1. All Metro / Windows Store apps have to be distributed through the Windows Store for mass distribution - that much is true. There are good reasons for this - namely it saves you the trouble of having to write installers for three separate hardware architectures (ARM, X86, X64) and makes it comparatively low-friction to distribute your app compared to traditional desktop applications. 2. It's pretty easy to side-load applications on a one-to-one basis for developers who are running non-ARM devices; you can package an app automatically from Visual Studio with a self-install PowerShell script and installing an app is as easy as emailing someone a zip file with the app package + install script. This was how we tested apps among distributed teams internally at Microsoft and how all of the early third-party developers did it. I only did this on X64 devices so I'm not sure if there's support for X86 and I'm pretty sure ARM doesn't support this. 3. Enterprises have the ability to create their own bolt-on to the app store using Active Directory to ensure that all of their employees can get access to private, line-of-business Metro apps that they don't want exposed in the public app store. 4. Traditional desktop applications, non-Metro ones, can still be distributed the old fashioned way. My previous employer before Microsoft has no plans to put its desktop software in the Windows Store and frankly I don't think it will affect them much. For the desktop, look at Metro as a way to have some content-focused apps and games that come to life directly on your desktop through live tiles. Don't look at them as replacements for heavy-weight, traditional desktop applications. That's not their point. Windows isn't going to be a closed platform - if anything Metro makes Windows more accessible to a larger number of developers. Shipping a traditional desktop application is an epic pain in the ass compared to shipping a Metro-style app. Metro makes it a lot easier for most developers to sell native apps on Windows.

antidoh 14y ago
"Metro makes it a lot easier for most developers to sell native apps on Windows." As long as Microsoft approves your app. I want my politically incorrect apps, full of boobs, farts, surveillance evading tools and bomb-making instructions.
- 14y ago

brudgers 14y ago

The notion of Microsoft getting rid of the desktop in favor of a locked down OS which only allows applications which running in sandboxes will make sense when Visual Studio is converted to do so. Or to put it another way, don't expect Microsoft to change the dogfood's dog food's to something they cannot eat. As a corollary, Windows 8 applications and RT devices will be suitable for the sorts of corporate tasks non-programmers at Microsoft perform in the course of their work.