8 ms·

The article argues that Metro apps are the future, not desktop apps. If the past is any guide to the future, desktop apps will be unacceptable to consumers in 1

by s_tec 14y ago

The article argues that Metro apps are the future, not desktop apps. If the past is any guide to the future, desktop apps will be unacceptable to consumers in 10 years time and completely unusable in 20 years time (based on the MS-DOS to Windows transition). Steam and other apps may work fine now, but what happens in 10 years? That is the long-term issue this article is trying to bring up.

keyboardP 14y ago
The MS-DOS to Windows transition was more technical than business. It is not an apt analogy because Windows Next being completely closed down would be a purely business decision. If we're using 'what-if' arguments, then what if Microsoft does remove desktop in favour of Metro and then open up Metro to everyone?
stinos 14y ago
That's very well possible, but to some extent only. It's at least doubtfull that desktop apps like CAD/IDE software will ever ceise to exist.
sliverstorm 14y ago
Presumably Steam will either start developing to the Metro interface, or continue targeting the old desktop interface. They are hardly about to throw up their hands and say, "well we had a good run but we're done now".
msbarnett 14y ago
Given Microsoft's track record with Win32 replacements, it seems a little far-fetched. I'd say there's more of a risk for Metro developers that the platform will be EOL'd/legacy/forgotten in 5 years than there is a risk to traditional desktop devs.
Karunamon 14y ago
>The article argues that Metro apps are the future I'm not seeing it. Metro's entire UI paradigm would seem to limit it to primarily content consumption apps and toys (games). For instance I don't think we'll ever see Photoshop or Ableton on metro as we know it today. That's not to say creation apps won't exist - look at the iPad, you've got full office suites, music apps that emulate synthesizers with a great degree of fidelity, etc - but those are most definitely a niche.
cabirum 14y ago
Windows still runs applications build for Win95, released 17 years ago. If anything, MS have always been known for maintaining backward compatibility. The MS-DOS argument.. it's simply not worth supporting 16bit dos programs in 2012. Also, VMs.
- roc 14y ago
  Yes, because nothing says "Microsoft isn't harming the platform and developers" like "we'll always be able to distribute software that users can run in their VMs".
- flomo 14y ago
  And, supposedly, with 32bit Window 8, DOS apps are still supported through NTVDM. (64bit Windows has never bothered to emulate the necessary 'virtual-8086' mode.)
jiggy2011 14y ago
I'm still a bit sceptical of this. Metro only allows you to work with one app on the screen at a time and you have to hit start every time you want to switch apps instead of a taskbar. If people want to use their desktop computers in such a way, why didn't they build the UI this way years ago?
- barrkel 14y ago
  They did. It was called dosshell; it sucked (for various reasons). Arguably things like screen in a terminal can be interpreted the same way. It's still a very awkward way of multitasking.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- sukuriant 14y ago
  In Metro mode, you can have an application running and another application running on the side. [1] [1] http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/windows-8-consumer-preview-flow-then-bing.jpg http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wind...
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    So 2 at a time. Meanwhile I have.. counts 24 windows open across 9 different applications.
    - sukuriant 14y ago
      That you're looking at at the same time?
      - Karunamon 14y ago
        I've long since opened and closed things since last comment, but I've got lets see.. 5 windows visible on my screen right now. This browser, a XenCenter session, an IRC client, a script for that IRC client, and a miniaturized iTunes. 2 is such an absurdly low limit as to be virtually useless.

by s_tec 14y ago

keyboardP 14y ago

The MS-DOS to Windows transition was more technical than business. It is not an apt analogy because Windows Next being completely closed down would be a purely business decision. If we're using 'what-if' arguments, then what if Microsoft does remove desktop in favour of Metro and then open up Metro to everyone?

stinos 14y ago

That's very well possible, but to some extent only. It's at least doubtfull that desktop apps like CAD/IDE software will ever ceise to exist.

sliverstorm 14y ago

Presumably Steam will either start developing to the Metro interface, or continue targeting the old desktop interface. They are hardly about to throw up their hands and say, "well we had a good run but we're done now".

msbarnett 14y ago

Given Microsoft's track record with Win32 replacements, it seems a little far-fetched. I'd say there's more of a risk for Metro developers that the platform will be EOL'd/legacy/forgotten in 5 years than there is a risk to traditional desktop devs.

Karunamon 14y ago

>The article argues that Metro apps are the future I'm not seeing it. Metro's entire UI paradigm would seem to limit it to primarily content consumption apps and toys (games). For instance I don't think we'll ever see Photoshop or Ableton on metro as we know it today. That's not to say creation apps won't exist - look at the iPad, you've got full office suites, music apps that emulate synthesizers with a great degree of fidelity, etc - but those are most definitely a niche.

cabirum 14y ago

Windows still runs applications build for Win95, released 17 years ago. If anything, MS have always been known for maintaining backward compatibility. The MS-DOS argument.. it's simply not worth supporting 16bit dos programs in 2012. Also, VMs.

roc 14y ago
Yes, because nothing says "Microsoft isn't harming the platform and developers" like "we'll always be able to distribute software that users can run in their VMs".
flomo 14y ago
And, supposedly, with 32bit Window 8, DOS apps are still supported through NTVDM. (64bit Windows has never bothered to emulate the necessary 'virtual-8086' mode.)

jiggy2011 14y ago

I'm still a bit sceptical of this. Metro only allows you to work with one app on the screen at a time and you have to hit start every time you want to switch apps instead of a taskbar. If people want to use their desktop computers in such a way, why didn't they build the UI this way years ago?

barrkel 14y ago
They did. It was called dosshell; it sucked (for various reasons). Arguably things like screen in a terminal can be interpreted the same way. It's still a very awkward way of multitasking.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
sukuriant 14y ago
In Metro mode, you can have an application running and another application running on the side. [1] [1] http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/windows-8-consumer-preview-flow-then-bing.jpg http://www.digitaltrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/wind...
- Karunamon 14y ago
  So 2 at a time. Meanwhile I have.. counts 24 windows open across 9 different applications.
  - sukuriant 14y ago
    That you're looking at at the same time?
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      I've long since opened and closed things since last comment, but I've got lets see.. 5 windows visible on my screen right now. This browser, a XenCenter session, an IRC client, a script for that IRC client, and a miniaturized iTunes. 2 is such an absurdly low limit as to be virtually useless.