Tech talk, cold comfort.

Forgive me if this is rambling,

Let's fact facts, the locked down OS is the future. The sheeple won't revolt. The average Desktop/Laptop user would have happily accepted a locked down Windows if it looked like the old one. They may have accepted some changes to it too provided the changes were implemented (or could be implemented) with a more mouse/keyboard-centric design. Don't believe me? Look at Windows 7, with UAC, Trusted Installer as a User, having to take control of files and folders before you can truly manipulate them. And the average user praises it. Compare Windows 7 to XP, compare XP to Windows 2000. They've been heading in this direction for over a decade. The laughable bit is they think they've made Windows "safer". That Malware is less likely to run. In general, they've overestimated the average user. What's left? Walled garden? It isn't the choice we want, but we aren't average average users.

Let's take a look at another issue from the standpoint of MS. $$$. I was personally glad when Microsoft stopped developing the 9x kernel and switched to NT, but that decision wasn't made out of benevolence from MS for its end-users, it was made to save money by not paying developers to work on two kernels. I suspect, we're going to see the same thing happen with whatever UI they decide to push in the future. They're already taking the stance that they've tossed us a bone. I suspect that, if Windows does continue in something that resembles its current form, that the Desktop, as we've known it, will be pushed to an unsupported Power-toy and eventually ended. They'll likely attempt to modify the "Modern" UI to make it more mouse/keyboard friendly and might even have some success. This is all a consequence of being a publicly traded company. Perform, perform, perform and reduce, reduce, reduce or watch your stock price tumble.

Let's really think how MS could save/make some money. The PC/Laptop form factor is on it's way out. It's not dead and there's still money to be had there, but what to do in the long run? Windows phone is dead. Microsoft's online services aren't performing well. They need to get an OS that performs well on low-end phones. Windows phone does not perform well there. Android does. Android is open source, for the most part. It's a given that MS despises the GPL. Android runs on top of Linux which is GPL, but AOSP (the open source Android Code) is licensed under the Apache Software License, Version 2.0. There has been some successful efforts to port AOSP to BSD, although it older AOSP. With Apache and BSD, MS could close source the stuff if they really wanted, but it might make sense not to. I've been reading up on what in full Android is and isn't open, and by and large you can have a pretty decent phone OS, with just AOSP. Now to be fully compatible with full Android, Microsoft would need to implement Google's APIs. My advice, don't. Really, don't. My advice, as of now, would be to fork it to run on BSD (pay for whatever's necessary, clean-room implementation, whatever) and implement Microsoft APIs for MS web services in whatever MS would call the full version. Where to start selling it? China! Google isn't there, full Android, pretty much isn't there either. If such a thing were successful, start building a fully functional OS for a Desktop/laptop out of that. Port the dotNet framework over. Port Office over. Port whatever else over. Give the new OS away free. Eventually plan for the end of Windows. From there, port the dotNet Framework, Office, whatever else to Linux. There is the little matter of MS's statements in support of Oracle in their case against Google. Two ways to deal with that, either retract or get in bed with Oracle.

I want to reiterate, this isn't necessarily the way I want things to go, but I could honestly see something like this turning the company around.

Steven W wrote:Forgive me if this is rambling,

Let's fact facts, the locked down OS is the future. The sheeple won't revolt...

(Will not read the rest of your post because you made me angry with those two sentences.)

I forgive you for rambling but will not forgive you for giving up. Do you always run scared like a little girl?

There is no such fact and unless developers follow into this prison, it will not happen.

And guess what! Developers have been speaking. They have chosen Android because it's more open and not locked. THAT is a fact.

The future of computing is MORE openness, not less. That is why Microsoft is dying.

Don't give up your freedom to the big corporations just because some "news" magazine said you should.

Never be scared. March forward.

Steven,

No no no no no... and no! First of all, the future is not a locked down operating system at all. Just look at Android's marketshare. It shows that the being open (loading whatever crap you want, not just the "approved" applications) is the future.

Secondly, I have to disagree that UAC is a walled garden. That's just some extra verifications for user action so you can't compare it to being a walled garden.

I think your post still relates directly to my earlier post about "What microsoft does not understand". Windows actually works really well. Our Windows Server 2012 R2 runs on 3GB RAM, easily! Even 2GB was OK. I have to disagree with you about this again, it is not about the kernel. It's about user interface and openness. If they took a BSD kernel and locked it down, it would have been the same thing again, same results.

Android has so much applications not because it's locked but because it's open! Anyone can create anything for it and copy it to friends, other users etc. That's where all the applications come from. Google just tapped into that market by creating the Google Play. Developers didn't start writing applications for Android because of Google Play. They did it because it was open.

If Microsoft removes the locked walled garden, as soon as anyone can create anything for Windows Phone and Windows 8.x (WinRT) WITHOUT having to pay them 30% of their profit, WITHOUT having to ask for permission to deploy their own application to whoeever the hell they want, then and only then, will they start getting all of those applications, not sooner. The longer they continue the lock-down path, the more dead they will be, because the longer this continues, the more developers they will lose. Once you lose a developer from your platform, usually, that developer will not be coming back for 10 years. They invest money and time.

Microsoft have EXCELLENT development tools, best in the world! (Visual Studio) ...but what good is the great tool if you have to ask your nanny or daddy for permission to deploy your application? That's why they can fuck off. Fuck off and burn in hell for all eternity.

Personally, I was a diehard Microsoft fanboy but once I buy a Delphi license, once I invest and move from Microsoft platform... I won't be coming back. Probably for at least 10 years or maybe I will be gone forever from Microsoft platform. I should probably thank Microsoft for locking down Windows 8... after all, Microsoft was the one waking me up! Oh, the irony!


@Scorpius,
I might like pr0n but man, you are just crazy! Just kidding, of course.

I think you're misinterpreting my points. I'm not running scared, I've hated the direction that MS has taken Window post 2000. I don't mind XP as I can work around most of it and it's not that bad. There's been some good in the more recent Windows, but in my eyes not much (at least as a strictly desktop OS). I am on Windows 7 now, simply because that's what the system I bought came installed with. I'm backing up stuff and relatively soon I plan on going back to XP along with a Ubuntu-based Linux Distro.

This post, largely, isn't about me personally, it's my thoughts on what MS *could* do to survive in the coming years. I want to make sure that point is completely clear. I need to eat at the moment. I might reply to some of your other thoughts later.

I understand your point, I'm sure Scorpius was only kidding. What I mean is that we shouldn't even say things like "the future is locked down" because, well, because it is simply untrue. Don't add fuel to their bullshit fire.

Why would you want to go back to XP from Windows 7?!!? Frankly, even though I dislike Windows 8.x, I think you should go to Windows 8.x and then install a Start Menu replacer program and be done with it. OK OK, you will miss Aero Glass but there is an add-on for it. Anyway, Windows 8.x will work much faster than your Windows 7 for you. I'm sure of it.

No offense, but look at full Android, Chorme OS, or at Windows Phone. Look at the most stellar example, iOS. Scorpius, you say that Android is more open, in a sense that's true, but let me ask, how do you get your application to a *typical* Android user without using the Android Store? Are they going to figure out "sideloading". For most people, those or some new OS are the future. An OS that disallows you the most basic freedom, installing/running whatever the heck you want without hassle. The folks here at this forum, at least the regular commenters, are not the norm.

I want to go back to XP to have control. Simply put, I don't plan on using Windows as my main OS anymore. Aero is nice, but it's eye candy. MSstyles is nice too, but you have to hack/patch it to really take advantage of it. I don't plan on figuring out how to remove Trusted Installer as a user (assuming that's even possible) and all the other stuff that I'd have to do to make 7 or any future version of Windows acceptable to me.

I suppose, even called sideloading, if it's allowed perhaps it's not so terrible. Perhaps you guys do have a point. Again, that's not the main focus of my comments. Windows is locked down in a way, because MS thinks they need to nursemaid us all. Can't delete that file in modern version of the OS without jumping through all kinds of hoops.

I personally think you are doing a huge mistake by using XP. Even if it won't be as your main operating system, you always want the lates version, especially if you want to move out of a platform and freeze one last version for your applications. You will be running an insecure full of hole operating system.

Honestly, Windows 8.x is not a bad operating system, (wait wait wait... I'm not done explaining why, don't kill me yet! hehe), as long as you take control of it and kill the bad stuff inside it with fire, and it is relatively easy to do so. TrustedInstaller is nothing scary and you can easily change security settings of files, even those with TrustedInstaller as owner, to delete them. I have never had any issues with it.

By going back to XP, you will be like the folks who are still locked into Windows 9x (!).

The best option would be if you could virtualize these. Virtualize one XP, one Windows 7, one Windows 8.x. Clean installs with full updates. Then you take a snapshot of the virtualized "clean" machine. After that, you can fiddle with them etc. They can all sit under the hood of your new platform, for example Linux.

All that being said, I still am of the opinion that Windows is a great operating system. Even with all the foolish ways of Microsoft, it is a solid tool for the enterprise. The server works perfectly. Not to mention Hyper-V, oh man, if you used Hyper-V for 30 days, you wouldn't go back to anything else "free" out there. Hyper-V is free by the way. Hassle free virtualization with nice speed! Oh, and don't forget the ReFS file system. No more running chkdsk and checking your sectors! Resilient file system! Again, the reason is that these are all enterprise class stuff. Which means they will work. They are very reliable and stable.

Still, I'm not "locked" into Windows. I just make sure that I never ever, never ever, use the stuff which can lock me in. SpyDrive(OneDrive) and such. Windows Store and such. Cloud whatever. To hell with them all. I DO have a "cloud" of my own, renting MY OWN servers. Having my own external drives etc.

I had some thoughts of moving away from Windows but I realized that I could just alter the theme and I would be "OK" because I am not really locked into Windows.

Now, don't get me wrong, the second Microsoft starts to lock me in, in a way that I feel that I cannot "move away" my stuff from Windows, that second, I'll be gone. For example, I will not make any WinRT application, ever. It is a lock-in horror scenario for any sane developer. So Microsoft lost me as a developer for their platform regarding that part. The other parts are still OK but we will see what will happen with Windows 9, of course.

Perhaps when Windows 9 comes out, I too, feel the need to move away from Windows.

Steven W wrote:No offense, but look at full Android, Chorme OS, or at Windows Phone. Look at the most stellar example, iOS. Scorpius, you say that Android is more open, in a sense that's true, but let me ask, how do you get your application to a *typical* Android user without using the Android Store? Are they going to figure out "sideloading". For most people, those or some new OS are the future. An OS that disallows you the most basic freedom, installing/running whatever the heck you want without hassle...

It is actually quite easy and almost (probably 99%) of all Android users know about this. A simple checkbox in the security settings. Not hidden at all. That is all you need to do and you can install any .APK that you wish. No restrictions. Even devices which are not rooted have this option.

iOS / Windows Phone / Windows Store No such option.

No such option very very very bad.