With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way • Hacker News Board

Re: With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

#101

Post by blntechie » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 8:39 AM UTC

csense wrote: post #66

beagle3 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's almost funny. I was too lazy to do things properly (kickstart script, etc.) so I have a bash script with about 10 "apt-get install" lines that set up everything I want on Ubuntu or debian, and a few more "echo" lines that configure 90% of my other preferences. 50 line scripts that contain very little other than the names of the programs I want or the configuration I want. Let's say I just got a new computer wi…

> Care to list the steps needed to get into your favorite state Well, first you have to figure out how the screen capture API for Windows. Then you have to take screenshots of each screen of the installer program of each application you have to run. Write image recognition code to figure out the location of each button on each tab of each installer screen. Then delve further into the Windows API's to write code to in…

That's funny. Google 'Chocolatey', it's similar to the apt for Windows.

Re: With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

#102

Post by blueskin_ » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 8:40 AM UTC

>The google way

Closing popular services? Massive pervasive privacy invasion?

I wonder how crippled the free version of Windows will be. MS made an ultra cheap version of vista and 7, for example, that was so limited it was almost a joke.

If MS want to keep their market share up, they should just keep selling Windows 7 at a lower price, as that is what people really want. Real computers are never going to disappear because phones and tablets are read only devices for passive consumers and completely unusable for any real work, underpowered, and with tiny screens (sure, it's nice to watch a movie on the train, but when you get home, you're probably going to use either a computer or a TV instead).

Re: With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

#103

Post by dagw » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 8:40 AM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #81

csense wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft's interest is to ram their touch interface down your throat so that you'd get used to it, and your next phone may possibly run Windows s/Microsoft/Canonical/ s/Windows/Ubuntu/

True. Except ... I'm not paying Ubuntu for my desktop OS; and I would for my server, except they're taking it where I don't want it to go, so I don't. And ... if you don't like Ubuntu's Unity (many people don't), Gnome, KDE, Enlightenment and ten other desktop environments are basically an apt-get away. Remind me, what was the command to get rid of The-UI-formerly-known-as-Metro and use the desktop instead?

Remind me, what was the command to get rid of The-UI-formerly-known-as-Metro and use the desktop instead?

In Windows 8.1 you check Boot To Desktop, in Windows 8 you either have to install a small utility or remember to click the big Desktop button in the top left corner every time you reboot. If you want the old style start menu back there are at least 3 different third party options to chose from.

Re: With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

#104

Post by roel_v » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 8:42 AM UTC

bytefactory wrote: post #43

nivla wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your interest is an open ecosystem. Microsoft's interest is to have a closed garden. (They haven't been successful with that one, but they're trying). I might get some heat for this but I must say Windows is still the OS with the least closed garden or heck even a garden. To get even the legitimate and popular x86 applications you still have to manually browse to websites and download it. You can install whatever yo…

> I might get some heat for this but I must say Windows is still the OS with the least closed garden or heck even a garden. Surely you meant "OS with a significant market share" or something, because there's no way Windows is more "open" in any way than Linux!

At least it's more reliable as a platform. Try to compile, let alone run, a program written for Linux 5 years ago on a distribution today. I compile and run 20 year old software, unmodified, on Windows 8, without any problems.

Re: With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

#105

Post by Ygg2 » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 8:53 AM UTC

roel_v wrote: post #104

bytefactory wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I might get some heat for this but I must say Windows is still the OS with the least closed garden or heck even a garden. Surely you meant "OS with a significant market share" or something, because there's no way Windows is more "open" in any way than Linux!

At least it's more reliable as a platform. Try to compile, let alone run, a program written for Linux 5 years ago on a distribution today. I compile and run 20 year old software, unmodified, on Windows 8, without any problems.

You must have had some amazing luck because my colleagues tried to install some DBs (it was a combination of Oracle 11g Weblogic and Maximo) and had miserable luck. And it was working on Win7.

Didn't Win 8 jetisson most of the compatibility?

Re: With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

#106

Post by nnq » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 9:00 AM UTC

ubercow13 wrote: post #97

nnq wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you trolling? What's the hardware configuration? (Just to make things clear before what follows, I'm not a Windows fanboy and I use like 70% of the time Windows and the rest Ubuntu or Fedora. And I'd choose Linux over windows anytime. But the current state of Gnome and KDE is deplorable! ...both from a UX/I perspective and from a performance perspective. Actually the only DE that doesn't make me wanna push my fis…

>Firefox has always been visibly faster on Linux Really? Chrome has always been considerably faster on Linux but I was under the impression Mozilla always had an easier time optimising their Windows builds, at least in the past. Certainly the hardware acceleration is better on Windows.

I was not referring to the page rendering which includes hardware acceleration. It may be better on Windows, I dunno. But the UI responsiveness was definitely worse on Windows.

By UI "responsiveness" I mean that there are two very different things: a browser can be dog slow at rendering a page and at doing animations or even at network transfers, and at the same time it can start "instantly", open/close a tab instantly, react instantly to me clicking on a link etc. I think you can see this best on a multiprocess browser like chrome: sometimes a page with high res pics and animations is snail slow, sometimes the inspector works in slow-motion or ups your cpu to 60% because of a weird script, but at the same time these things happen, the "chrome ui" can still feel pretty snappy, opening/closing stabs in an instant, opening/changing settings, doing non-page-related suff via extensions or maybe even clicking a lin inside an otherwise slowed-to-a-crawl page can go to that link "instantly".

I'd take an always responsive UI over "real speed" anytime (and yeah, Windows' DE can suck at this, but except for specific apps it sucks just as much as KDE or Gnome).

Re: With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

#107

Post by superuser2 » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 9:01 AM UTC

beagle3 wrote: post #33

superuser2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your interest is to keep an OS supported. That's not true. It's in your interest to benefit from improvements in software quality. (Certain "upgrades" from Microsoft have been anything but that, but we've certainly come a long way since Windows ME.) A product encumbered by technical debt is going to be weaker. There are certain well-defined, self-contained systems where never changing makes sense - things that will…

You copied half of my paragraph. I was specifically referring to Microsoft refusing to support DirectX and new Browsers on older operating systems. The limitation was definitely not technical - Chrome and Firefox supported 2000 and XP years after Microsoft stopped. > > Your interest is to keep an OS supported. > That's not true. That's basically always true (even if you quoted me out of context) - it is always your i…

But it is technical. IE, Chrome, and Firefox are different codebases and what's true of one isn't necessarily true of the others.

Chrome and Firefox are largely self-contained. Being multi-platform, they have to be. It makes sense that they can be modified without touching their underlying operating systems.

You keep calling IE "Browser" but it's more than that - it is (or at least used to be) a core component of Windows, and very tightly coupled with parts of the operating system that have nothing to do with web browsing. (Navigating local files, for one thing.) Consequently, overhauling IE without overhauling Windows is (or at least was) a hairy proposition and Microsoft decided it wasn't worth it.

I don't know about DirectX, but I suspect it's also tightly coupled with the operating system such that it's not technically feasible to make current versions run on differently engineered operating systems.

Re: With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

#108

Post by rakoo » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 9:08 AM UTC

Aaronontheweb wrote: post #54

aegiso wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

End-user Windows licenses haven't been a significant source of income for Microsoft for a very long time. They make their money from their enterprise ecosystem, and end-user Windows serves only to support that ecosystem. So unfortunately, I hate to break it to you that as an end user the money you're giving Microsoft for their products never gave you control. But on the bright side, pissing off the end users that pro…

> End-user Windows licenses haven't been a significant source of income for Microsoft for a very long time. If ~$20b in revenue last year isn't a big business... http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earn... 65% of that $20b comes from OEMs, which is 100% consumer. edit: the exact quote from the earnings statement I linked: "Excluding the impact of the Windows Upgrade Offer, OEM revenue decreased 15…

OEM means the hardware manufacturer bought a licence and installed it. The end-user had no choice of OS. You can't say Microsoft had any business with end-users.

Re: With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

#109

Post by estebank » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 9:12 AM UTC

delian66 wrote: post #89

cbhl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repacking all the software yourself so that you can automate the installation of packages is hardly what I'd consider a solution. In practice, people use drive images of Windows, or Ninite, or pay the neighbourhood PFK $12/hr to "automate" it.

What is neighbourhood PFK ?

Pimple Faced Kid

Re: With Free Version of Windows, Microsoft Gives In to the Google Way

#110

Post by varkson » Tue, Mar 04, 2014, 9:22 AM UTC

hughdbrown wrote: post #52

bruce511 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are describing here is the cost of changing from an OS you know, to one that you don't. Since this cost greatly exceeds the sticker price of windows, or Mac for that matter, it is the real reason why people tend to stick with the OS they already know how to use. It's one of the reasons why Linux never got much traction on the desktop. Sure it made a great desktop OS for the technorati but Joe Public knows ho…

Well, thanks, but I am not smug about this. I don't care if Windows lives or dies. I've moved on. We are no longer dating. And here's how it happened: http://www.iwebthereforeiam.com/iwebthereforeiam/2009/10/int... I was a happy Windows developer (DOS, Windows 3,1, NT, Windows 95, Windows whatever) and found that windows was too annoying to live with. And I don't pretend this is everyone's situation or even anyone el…

It's your dumb fault for installing a beta and expecting it to update cleanly. It's never been that way and I wouldn't be surprised if it was made clear at the download page, as it was with all the Windows 8 betas.