Tim Sweeney believes that Microsoft will harm Steam with Windows 10 updates

[7850OC]

"nvidia" tactics on blue i say 

[AlTech]

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

What about software that uses Direct3D or Direct2D.. say like... Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Visual Studio, Firefox, Premier, AfterEffects, 3DStudio Max, PhotoShop, AutoCAD, Maya, Windows Media Player 12, console emulators, and LOTS more.

 

Windows Media Player has a successor. The Movies and TV playback app. It can playback videos, movies, tv shows and is UWP.

 

You can have Direct X 11 and Direct X 12 Universal Apps. You will certainly have to deal with Vsync for now but it's fine.

 

Firefox is not UWP because UWP cannot use normal C++ and has to use CX (I think that's how it's spelled) which is a modified version of C++. And because their engine is not made for UWP.

 

Word, Excel and Powerpoint use Win32 for compatibility since they are very old software (they use the Microsoft Foundation Class as their base) and need to run on Windows 7, 8. 8.1 and 10. There are UWP versions of Word, Excel powerpoint and OneNote however they have limited features.

 

Visual Studio is visual studio. Nothing to see here.

 

Same for Premier, After effects and anything written in C++. It would have to be re-written in CX as most old professional software use Microsoft Foundation Class.

[alextulu]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Way to take his quotes out of context. Tim was excited that Sony and Microsoft were going to release new consoles this quickly. He specifically said that it was good because it was like the upgrade cycle of the PC. He was excited because it would bring modern hardware to console gamers without completely abandoning the current platforms users and developers.

He was excited that consoles were becoming a bit more like PCs (which I totally agree with). I don't really see why you would call him a hypocrite over that. Unless of course, you are making a strawman argument in a poor attempt to undermine valid skepticism and concerns.

I know, that he was actually talking about hardware, but that's not an excuse for him to remain completely silent about the Xbox being a closed platform, especially when he seems to not have a problem with criticizing Microsoft about Windows becoming closed.

 

It possible to mislead people through omission.

 

What do you think will happen, when an average Joe hears about Tim Sweeny criticizing Windows, and in the same time praising the consoles, without disclosing the fact, that consoles have the same problem, that he's accusing Windows of.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

There is also a HUGE difference between a console, which is designed for a very specific purpose, being locked down, and a general purpose computer which has been fairly open all of a sudden getting more closed down.

Closed platforms are always bad.

 

Just because people are used to consoles being locked, doesn't make it a good thing.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Win32 will always be more open than UWP, because it is not bound by the same restrictions. Restrictions like all programs being sandboxed, or users not being able to modify the files.

Which is another reason, why Microsoft can't remove Win32.

 

If they do, then nobody would be able to use 3rd party antiviruses, firewalls, data recovery tools, disk partitioning tools, and all kinds of other tools, which are not compatible with the sandbox.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Actually they couldn't. At least not on Windows 7 and 8 where users had control over updates.

Updates are not the only way. They could have released a version of Windows as a closed platform.

 

If they released Windows 7 as a closed platform, then nobody would have used it, and Microsoft would have had to make it an open platform.

 

Which is what's going to happen, if Microsoft makes Windows 10 a closed platform. People will stop using it, and Microsoft will have to make it an open platform again.

[LAwLz]

16 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Actually, it is impossible for Microsoft to kill Win32 apps.

If they do, A LOT of existing software will not work, Windows users aren't Apple where they have 0 problem buying a new version of all their software. Not to mention a lot of software can no longer exists.

Did you actually read my post at all?

Since you seemed to have missed it, here it is again:

17 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Sweeny never said he thinks Microsoft will completely kill win32 tomorrow. He specifically said that if Microsoft conveniences everyone to develop for UWP they would be able to kill Win32 over a long period of time.

In case you are still unable to understand what I meant let me rephrase it. If developers basically left win32 today, as in they did no longer provide updates for win32 programs and everyone just jumped on to UWP and started releasing their new programs on there, then Microsoft could gradually kill Win32 in maybe 5 to 10 years, without much resistance.

I've seen countless of posts here telling people to abandon old software when they start encountering issues with them, and sometimes even when there aren't any issues at all (your buddies in the MDF are very keen on telling people to just use whatever is the newest). Consumers who need a program from 10-15 years ago, and there are no newer alternatives are very rare. Businesses could get a special version with win32 fully enabled.

 

 

16 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Companies custom software will not run anymore.

Update them for UWP or buy the "win32 enabled version of Windows".

 

16 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

System tweak tools cannot exists as, the least they do is access the registry, or communicates with windows, or communicates with memory of other processes, or communicates with drivers or hardware.

Microsoft seem completely fine with removing these.

 

16 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Driver software can not longer exists. Like above, it can't communicate with drivers.

Driver developers could get a special license from Microsoft. Microsoft already installs drivers for you (even if you don't want it to), so they could just make it so that drivers could only be installed though Windows update.

 

16 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

All accessibility software cannot run, as it works by connecting itself to other software to read its content and do things, and inject content (speech to text, for example)

I can't test it (since I don't want UWP aids on my computer), but doesn't the built in accessibility features work for UWP? I am fairly sure they do, so it would not be an issue from Microsoft's POV.

 

16 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Software can no longer have DRM system.

Ehm... Yes they can? The Microsoft store is DRM.

 

16 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Command line software will not work anymore. That means a massive number of company internal tools will not work anymore.

Not true. Here is an example.

 

16 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Can't have custom VPN system.

So?

 

 

A lot of your arguments seems to use circular logic. They basically boil down to "Microsoft can't break compatibility because if they did then it would break compatibility!". Then you just list a bunch of things it would break compatibility with. The things you listed are drawbacks of killing win32, but none of the things listed are actually arguments as for why it would be impossible to remove win32 compatibility.

"It would be bad" and "it is impossible" are not the same things.

 

 

16 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

And that is why I find Tim Sweeney comments were idiotic in my opinion. He didn't think it through, to say the least.

I actually think he did think it through. It's just that you haven't read what he said and/or haven't thought it through in a clear and unbiased manner.

[GoodBytes]

28 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Did you actually read my post at all?

Since you seemed to have missed it, here it is again:

In case you are still unable to understand what I meant let me rephrase it. If developers basically left win32 today, as in they did no longer provide updates for win32 programs and everyone just jumped on to UWP and started releasing their new programs on there, then Microsoft could gradually kill Win32 in maybe 5 to 10 years, without much resistance.

I've seen countless of posts here telling people to abandon old software when they start encountering issues with them, and sometimes even when there aren't any issues at all (your buddies in the MDF are very keen on telling people to just use whatever is the newest). Consumers who need a program from 10-15 years ago, and there are no newer alternatives are very rare. Businesses could get a special version with win32 fully enabled.

I have read your post. And I said that Microsoft can't kill it. You think Microsoft can convince MSI to make MSI Afterburner a universal app? How about tweak tools?how about all I mentioned to the point that Microsoft can't kill Win32. These software don't work under UWP. The only way Microsoft make UWP replace WIn32, if UWP becomes as powerful as Win32, and that means you just rename WIn32 to UWP, as the whole UWP design principal goes at the bin.

 

And again, you act like companies and people can just go out and buy new software to be UWP. You see how many computer still run Windows XP? You think that it is an easy switch? You think most companies have a in house dev department? No. No they don't. Do you think I will get a mortgage to rebuy all my software because Windows 10 Second Anniversary Update (or whatever), will be not run Win32 programs anymore?

 

Quote

Driver developers could get a special license from Microsoft. Microsoft already installs drivers for you (even if you don't want it to), so they could just make it so that drivers could only be installed though Windows update.

And Microsoft can force you to show 20 min ads when you login, with questions to make sure you are  paying attention, and if you have it wrong 3 times, it over volts your hardware, and deletes all your data. Doesn't mean it can, that it will happen.

 

Quote

I can't test it (since I don't want UWP aids on my computer), but doesn't the built in accessibility features work for UWP? I am fairly sure they do, so it would not be an issue from Microsoft's POV.

You should look into accessibility devices. I have, from IT experience in a College fo student and professors. Windows built-in stuff is extremely basic an not suitable for those who have anything beside minor disability. It's more of a helper than actually use your system if you have a disability.

 

Quote

Ehm... Yes they can? The Microsoft store is DRM.

And if it gets cracked, then all software have no more DRM. You think software companies would be happy with this?

 

Quote

Not true. Here is an example.

This is a command line. I can't run my command line software with it. At work I have command line software that modifies files, and change registry keys. Assuming that Microsoft makes a genuine command line for UWP, it would still not work due to the sandbox nature.

 

Quote

So?

A lot of your arguments seems to use circular logic. They basically boil down to "Microsoft can't break compatibility because if they did then it would break compatibility!". Then you just list a bunch of things it would break compatibility with. The things you listed are drawbacks of killing win32, but none of the things listed are actually arguments as for why it would be impossible to remove win32 compatibility.

"It would be bad" and "it is impossible" are not the same things.

You act like dropping WIn32 is minor and easy to do, with little to no impact. Like a minor inconvenience to some. And your logic, is "Oh it is possible.. there is 0.00000001% that it can happen.. so it will happen!!! We must freak out! We must get out our pitch forks, gun, and torches, and burn. There is 0 trust. Everyone is potentially suicidal! Kill them all!"

 

My argument is that the impact is huge and impossible for Microsoft to do, even if the company really wanted to. Companies, and people would switch to Windows 2000, and call it a day, while they transition to Linux based OS, because stuff has to work, and UWP doesn't allow that to happen.
 

Quote

I actually think he did think it through. It's just that you haven't read what he said and/or haven't thought it through in a clear and unbiased manner.

As a developer, I am telling you that is isn't possible. There is no bias.

And by "not possible" I mean "have you jump out the window". You might do it, if you are suicidal, but it not realistic situation, because by nature things aren't suicidal. Much like Microsoft can put 20min ads when you login, and all that. They can do it. Everything is possible. But that isn't realistic.

 

[alextulu]

45 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Ehm... Yes they can? The Microsoft store is DRM.

DRM, which requires a driver or system process, like SecuROM, doesn't work on UWP, because of the sandbox.

[Zulkkis]

Everyone who thinks that Tim is on the path of tinfoil-hattery should at least understand the point he is trying to make. He is saying that the current direction gives Microsoft all the rope they need to hang the developers if they choose to do so.

 

Microsoft's market position is so strong that we could metaphorically say that it makes Microsoft put a chain under us, on which we stand on. Now, with these mandatory new update policies, UWP etc. Microsoft puts a rope around our neck. Now, Microsoft is naturally in a very strong negotiation position and if they don't get what they want, they could just kick the chair from under us.

 

Whether if Microsoft will ever kick that chair or not, is not really the question here. Similar things have happened before, though - Microsoft fear-mongered about OpenGL support when they launched Vista, saying that OpenGL -commands would be turned into DirectX equivalents (causing a slowdown) and pushed the Xbox, creating a situation where people would rather program for DirectX instead of OpenGL. Microsoft also pulled something similar with ActiveX during the browser wars.

 

But that is not what Sweeney's key argument is. Sweeney's argument is that the chair (monopolistic market position) is already pretty powerful; considering that we should definitely not be allowing Microsoft to tie a rope around our necks. I think it is a perfectly reasonable proposition. Whether if the actual kick would ever happen or not is another thing, just like possessing nuclear weapons doesn't mean that you're actually using them.

[LAwLz]

10 hours ago, alextulu said:

It possible to mislead people through omission.

I know, which is exactly what you tried to do when you pretended like Sweeny was praising the consoles when he was actually saying it was good that the hardware aspect of the consoles was becoming more like the PC (in that they get a hardware update this shortly after release, and it would have backwards/forwards compatibility).

 

10 hours ago, alextulu said:

What do you think will happen, when an average Joe hears about Tim Sweeny criticizing Windows, and in the same time praising the consoles, without disclosing the fact, that consoles have the same problem, that he's accusing Windows of.

But he was not praising the consoles. It only sounds like praise when you take quotes out of context. Sweeny can not control people taking his quotes out of context. He can only say what he thinks and then hope that people actually read/hear EVERYTHING he said and fully understand it.

If he says something along the lines of "I think the Xbone Scorpio is good because it is more like a PC than the Xbone was", and you only read "I think the Xbone Scorpio is good", then that would not be his fault. It would be your fault.

You can't blame him for your lack of reading comprehension.

 

10 hours ago, alextulu said:

Closed platforms are always bad.

 

Just because people are used to consoles being locked, doesn't make it a good thing.

Stop with all this black or white thinking. "Open-ness" is not binary. It's a spectrum. Windows is on the closed end of the spectrum and I would not call it bad in general. I think Windows is a pretty good OS despite being fairly closed. OS X is more open (contrary to popular beliefs) but I think it is worse than Windows in major ways, which prevents me from liking and using it.

Android is even more open, but I would certainly not want to use that on my desktop.

 

You very rarely find something that is completely open or completely closed.

 

 

10 hours ago, alextulu said:

Which is another reason, why Microsoft can't remove Win32.

 

If they do, then nobody would be able to use 3rd party antiviruses, firewalls, data recovery tools, disk partitioning tools, and all kinds of other tools, which are not compatible with the sandbox.

Windows is getting more and more closed down, and Microsoft are creating more and more scenarios where they can theoretically put all of us on a tighter leash if they so desire.

Not sure if you were around when Windows 10 launched but I was strongly against the removal of user control over updates. Wanna know what the reposes were? "You can't trust the average Joe with controlling updates so it is for the greater good". People were cheering Microsoft on to remove control from users. If people think it is for the greater good to remove the hide button from updates, then it should be for the greater good to remove the things you listed as well. If people think that the ability to hide updates were causing issues for the average Joe, because they were doing things they did not understand, then surely removing things like custom firewall policies and partitioning tools is for "the greater good" as well, right? With the partitioning tool the user might wipe their entire drive!

 

15 hours ago, alextulu said:

Updates are not the only way. They could have released a version of Windows as a closed platform.

 

If they released Windows 7 as a closed platform, then nobody would have used it, and Microsoft would have had to make it an open platform.

 

Which is what's going to happen, if Microsoft makes Windows 10 a closed platform. People will stop using it, and Microsoft will have to make it an open platform again.

Can you please define what you mean by "if they released Windows 7 as a closed platform" and "makes Windows 10 a closed platform"? Windows 10 is already a lot more of a walled garden than Windows 7. Again, you seem to have this bizarre idea that something is either open or closed. It is not that simple.

Ever heard of boiling frog? That is very possibly what is going on right now with Windows 10.

[GoodBytes]

23 minutes ago, Zulkkis said:

Everyone who thinks that Tim is on the path of tinfoil-hattery should at least understand the point he is trying to make. He is saying that the current direction gives Microsoft all the rope they need to hang the developers if they choose to do so.

 

Microsoft's market position is so strong that we could metaphorically say that it makes Microsoft put a chain under us, on which we stand on. Now, with these mandatory new update policies, UWP etc. Microsoft puts a rope around our neck. Now, Microsoft is naturally in a very strong negotiation position and if they don't get what they want, they could just kick the chair from under us.

 

People forget that the 90's is long past for Microsoft. It's golden years has well past, and Microsoft no longer have domination in the world.

More and more software are running exclusively on Android and iPhone, and while you can say that Microsoft has gaming.. gaming is not much in reality, and it is really easy for developer to switch to Linux if they are pissed off. All you need are big devs doing the switch, and people will switch to Linux, and big publishers will follow. The transition will be quick. In 3 years, Microsoft lost the little mobile market share it had because they didn't take any of it seriously. In ~3 years, RIM, this massive company, is nothing.. living off patents, barely making it, and trying to be an Android phone maker.

 

Microsoft has been "locking" down the OS since Windows 1. Because the point of any OS, is to make it easier to use, and remove a lot of layers on the back, which results in less functionality available that will always displease someone. Linux based OS tries to please both, but what end up happening is that the GUI is not really in used, when when it is, the terminal is used like crazy. You don't use command prompt for every day usage under Windows.

 

But that doesn't mean that Microsoft will be suicidal in destroying it has just to make a quick buck. Phones are getting more and more powerful, and it is just a question of time before all processors support full OpenGL/Vulkan, and they will. Nvidia has started it with its Tegra chips. Nvidia issue is that there is a lack of need for full OpenGL due to the simplicity of games, and weak CPU which make demand not there. But Qualcomm can make it happen. Already we see that Android N with phablets (with powerful chips) can give you 2 app proper multi-tasking, without any hacks like Samsung did before. In a year, I see Android having Continuum type feature, and with the market share of Android, I would see some companies have its employees run only an Android phone with a dock station at their desk. Dock it, and you are ready to work.

 

Microsoft is weak, but they are not panicking. Panicking is the worst thing a company can do. This always results in failure. Microsoft is now being serious. They are building an ecosystem, and sadly, that translates to locking down its stuff. The way Microsoft does it is the best method. They COULD lock down Win32. That is easy... but instead they did it's own thing: Universal Apps Platform, and that is what they work with. Building an ecosystem, is what will help the company grow. Growth is important to get shareholders, and investors, which allows the company to have funds to investments, hire people, and not fire people. Microsoft fire people. Google and Apple only hire people.

 

No one can predict the future, and tomorrow Satya might be fired, and someone else takes control, and say "I want a quick buck out of my investments, and don't care about the company image or what will happen after 1 eyra, as I'll be long gone, Lets put 20min ads when you login" and well that can happen.

 

23 minutes ago, Zulkkis said:

Whether if Microsoft will ever kick that chair or not, is not really the question here. Similar things have happened before, though - Microsoft fear-mongered about OpenGL support when they launched Vista, saying that OpenGL -commands would be turned into DirectX equivalents (causing a slowdown) and pushed the Xbox, creating a situation where people would rather program for DirectX instead of OpenGL. Microsoft also pulled something similar with ActiveX during the browser wars.

Actually, the reason why DirectX is popular over OpenGL has nothing to do with fear that devs had. Devs aren't afraid of anything. They aren't fooled.

DirectX got the biggest market share because it was the first at the party, and Microsoft was very aggressive in documentation, and form the ground up, it was designed to be debugable, and pushing DirectX to be at the forefront of gaming graphics.

 

OpenGL was never intended to be released to the public by Silicon Graphics . They only released it, because the company was closing its door. It had no debug tools, and just today, you have some tools available, but OpenGL due to the way it is design, doesn't allow powerful tools to be easily made. Now this might change with Vulkan but we will see.

 

Today, if you picked up a shading language, DirectX is still easier to get started, and has the most resources. As in the gaming industry there is a lot of turn over of employees (because you physically can't be overworked all your life, few last a long time), DirectX is preferred. Easier to train, easier for new devs to get started, learn, and make stuff.

 

 

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I have read your post. And I said that Microsoft can't kill it. You think Microsoft can convince MSI to make MSI Afterburner a universal app? How about tweak tools?how about all I mentioned to the point that Microsoft can't kill Win32. These software don't work under UWP. The only way Microsoft make UWP replace WIn32, if UWP becomes as powerful as Win32, and that means you just rename WIn32 to UWP, as the whole UWP design principal goes at the bin.

 

And again, you act like companies and people can just go out and buy new software to be UWP. You see how many computer still run Windows XP? You think that it is an easy switch? You think most companies have a in house dev department? No. No they don't. Do you think I will get a mortgage to rebuy all my software because Windows 10 Second Anniversary Update (or whatever), will be not run Win32 programs anymore?

Or include win32 support only in the Enterprise version.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

And Microsoft can force you to show 20 min ads when you login, with questions to make sure you are  paying attention, and if you have it wrong 3 times, it over volts your hardware, and deletes all your data. Doesn't mean it can, that it will happen.

Stop being facetious. It just makes me take you less and less serious for every post you make. I honestly believe you are a paid Microsoft shill. It is the only logical explanation I can think of why you would constantly suck on MS's dick so much. I am not alone in believing this either.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

You should look into accessibility devices. I have, from IT experience in a College fo student and professors. Windows built-in stuff is extremely basic an not suitable for those who have anything beside minor disability. It's more of a helper than actually use your system if you have a disability.

Accessibility in UWP on MSDN

Besides, Microsoft seems perfectly fine with throwing some people under the bus (such as "power users") for profits. Maybe they will just do what Apple did on iOS and expose a few UWP APIs for accessibility support.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

And if it gets cracked, then all software have no more DRM. You think software companies would be happy with this?

Actually, yes.

Did you know that Microsoft is heavily invested in the DRM business? Developers are already heavily depending on DRMs developed by Microsoft (PlayReady is HUGE in the movie industry, and they don't seem to have any issue trusting a single DRM). The situation is the same on iOS and OS X. Hell, a ton of developers completely depend on Steam's DRM as well.

As shown by iOS, locking the OS down more will actually help counter piracy. So I am sure software companies would back Microsoft when it comes to the DRM.

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

This is a command line. I can't run my command line software with it. At work I have command line software that modifies files, and change registry keys. Assuming that Microsoft makes a genuine command line for UWP, it would still not work due to the sandbox nature.

You're the minority. Get ready to get thrown under the bus or cough up some extra money for the Enterprise version! (Just to be 100% clear, I am not saying this will happen, but it could).

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

You act like dropping WIn32 is minor and easy to do, with little to no impact. Like a minor inconvenience to some. And your logic, is "Oh it is possible.. there is 0.00000001% that it can happen.. so it will happen!!! We must freak out! We must get out our pitch forks, gun, and torches, and burn. There is 0 trust. Everyone is potentially suicidal! Kill them all!"

 

My argument is that the impact is huge and impossible for Microsoft to do, even if the company really wanted to. Companies, and people would switch to Windows 2000, and call it a day, while they transition to Linux based OS, because stuff has to work, and UWP doesn't allow that to happen.

If that's what you gathered from my posts then I strongly recommend you read them again. Just to repeat myself. Either you need to brush up your reading comprehension skills, or you are making a strawman argument.

I am not saying it will happen. I am not even acting like it will happen. I have never said or acted like it is an easy thing to do. What I said was that:
IF DEVELOPERS HAD ABANDONED WIN32 WHEN UWP LAUNCHED, IF UWP HAD BECOME A HUGE SUCCESS, THEN MICROSOFT COULD HAVE STARTED PHASING WIN32 OUT SLOWLY, 5-10 YEARS FROM NOW. THAT MEANS THAT BY THE YEAR 2024 THEY MIGHT HAVE TAKEN SMALL STEPS TO PHASE WIN32 OUT! THE PROCESS OF PHASING IT OUT COULD TAKE ANOTHER 5-10 YEARS! BY 2030 WINDOWS MIGHT BE AS LOCKED DOWN AS iOS!

 

Does that make things a bit more clear, or are you still going to pretend like I am saying Microsoft will kill win32 tomorrow? I would also like you to pay attention to the "ifs" and "mights" in that paragraph. They are there to ensure that nobody reading this will assume that I am saying it will happen. Just that it might.

 

Even if Microsoft doesn't do it, it's still scary that they are designing their products in a way where they can choke competitors and consumers if they feel like it. It's like putting a gun to my head and going "oh stop being so worried. I won't shoot you. I would go to jail for that! I am just holding this gun here for fun!". Now imagine if the person holding the gun had shot people before, and been found guilty for it. You wouldn't feel so safe, right?

And yes, I do imagine Microsoft as a criminal, because they are (hence why I don't trust them). After all, they have been sentenced several times for breaking the law in order to harm consumers and competitors. Microsoft has also not shown any sign of wanting to stop abusing their customers either (examples: the shit they tried to pull with the Xbone, and removing a ton of control from the users in Windows 10).

 

 

5 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

As a developer, I am telling you that is isn't possible. There is no bias.

And by "not possible" I mean "have you jump out the window". You might do it, if you are suicidal, but it not realistic situation, because by nature things aren't suicidal. Much like Microsoft can put 20min ads when you login, and all that. They can do it. Everything is possible. But that isn't realistic.

The word you are looking for is "improbable". It is improbable that Microsoft will do it, but it is not impossible.

Also, it is only improbable because UWP hasn't taken off, and because you imagine it as one day Microsoft would remove win32. You don't dump the frogs straight into boiling water. You slowly raise the temperature.

[AlTech]

10 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I have read your post. And I said that Microsoft can't kill it. You think Microsoft can convince MSI to make MSI Afterburner a universal app? How about tweak tools?how about all I mentioned to the point that Microsoft can't kill Win32. These software don't work under UWP. The only way Microsoft make UWP replace WIn32, if UWP becomes as powerful as Win32, and that means you just rename WIn32 to UWP, as the whole UWP design principal goes at the bin.

 

And again, you act like companies and people can just go out and buy new software to be UWP. You see how many computer still run Windows XP? You think that it is an easy switch? You think most companies have a in house dev department? No. No they don't. Do you think I will get a mortgage to rebuy all my software because Windows 10 Second Anniversary Update (or whatever), will be not run Win32 programs anymore?

 

And Microsoft can force you to show 20 min ads when you login, with questions to make sure you are  paying attention, and if you have it wrong 3 times, it over volts your hardware, and deletes all your data. Doesn't mean it can, that it will happen.

 

You should look into accessibility devices. I have, from IT experience in a College fo student and professors. Windows built-in stuff is extremely basic an not suitable for those who have anything beside minor disability. It's more of a helper than actually use your system if you have a disability.

 

And if it gets cracked, then all software have no more DRM. You think software companies would be happy with this?

 

This is a command line. I can't run my command line software with it. At work I have command line software that modifies files, and change registry keys. Assuming that Microsoft makes a genuine command line for UWP, it would still not work due to the sandbox nature.

 

You act like dropping WIn32 is minor and easy to do, with little to no impact. Like a minor inconvenience to some. And your logic, is "Oh it is possible.. there is 0.00000001% that it can happen.. so it will happen!!! We must freak out! We must get out our pitch forks, gun, and torches, and burn. There is 0 trust. Everyone is potentially suicidal! Kill them all!"

 

My argument is that the impact is huge and impossible for Microsoft to do, even if the company really wanted to. Companies, and people would switch to Windows 2000, and call it a day, while they transition to Linux based OS, because stuff has to work, and UWP doesn't allow that to happen.
 

As a developer, I am telling you that is isn't possible. There is no bias.

And by "not possible" I mean "have you jump out the window". You might do it, if you are suicidal, but it not realistic situation, because by nature things aren't suicidal. Much like Microsoft can put 20min ads when you login, and all that. They can do it. Everything is possible. But that isn't realistic.

 

If they stopped supporting it tomorrow then everybody's PCs would be screwed alright.

 

Control Panel is Win32 and not UWP. Paint, XPS viewer and those other terrible programs are all Win32.

 

Movie maker is Win32.

[WolfDeville]

On ‎27‎/‎07‎/‎2016 at 0:34 AM, GoodBytes said:

In 5 years from now, Microsoft will show ads at every mouse clicks. And when you turn on your PC, you'll watch 20 min of ads, with questions in between to make sure you are paying attention. 1 mistake, and you to re-watch another set of 20 min ads.

 

Microsoft is also working with Nvidia, Intel and AMD, integrating the ability for the OS to overclock your hardware.. but you don't have access to this. If you fail 3 times answering these ads question in a row, it sets the voltage of your hardware to crazy high number, burning your chips. Forcing you to buy a new computer and a new license of Windows.

 

And if you don't use Cortana 5 times a day, at the end of the day, it will encrypt all your data, randsomeware style, asking you pay a fee to decrypt it all.

 

In fact, Microsoft is also working with the government around the word to ban all other operating system beside Windows. And Bill Gates, you think he is all great with his philanthropic work, but in reality all medication provided by the Gates &Melinda foundation are brainwashing medication, to form the ultimate army to rule the world! Why else he would do this? To help people?... HA!

 

And that is all possible thanks to the forced update system. Microsoft is EEEEVVVVIILL!

 

That is quite over the top. I'm assuming you're just joking, right?

 

Edit: I feel like I should point out that my post was sarcastic.

[VAkena]

On 7/27/2016 at 0:35 AM, spidsepttk said:

Just Microsoft's attempt of making the App Store. It won't work. I wish people would just forget about Windows, it is only used because game devs won't make their games compatible with multiple operating systems. Microsoft are recently forgetting that Windows is not UNIX based, and based on shitty MSDOS that has a lot of security risks, and it is much harder for an antivirus to work on a MSDOS based operating system than in a UNIX based system because drivers are stored the Windows folder instead of a different location from the files required for the system to function. The reason why there are many more viruses for Windows systems is because Windows does not have something called superuser that is found in UNIX based systems. To run any command that could be potentially harmful on a UNIX system you have to enter the root password by running sudo.

Kinda hard to forget about Windows when it holds 80%+ desktop OS market share. You're right though, about UNIX vs MSDOS.

[alextulu]

 

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Can you please define what you mean by "if they released Windows 7 as a closed platform" and "makes Windows 10 a closed platform"?

Have you already forgotten:

On 7/30/2016 at 5:43 PM, alextulu said:

They could have made it so, that all executables, including Win32, could only run if digitally signed by Microsoft.

When the company making the operating system controls which program you're allowed to run, then it's a closed software platform.

 

Apple controls, what hardware you can use with their operating system, which makes it a closed hardware platform.

 

UWP is not closed, because you can sideload apps, which are not digitally signed by Microsoft.

 

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Stop with all this black or white thinking. "Open-ness" is not binary. It's a spectrum.

You might have different opinions, as to what makes a platform closed, like the lack of options or customizability, but I think that we can all agree, that censorship is the worst.

 

If Windows is a closed platform (which in my definition means, that all executables must be signed by Microsoft, otherwise they don't run), then Microsoft can prevent people from using certain apps, by refusing to sign them.

 

That's censorship.

 

For example, if somebody makes an app, that's is meant to compete with another app, that's made by Microsoft, then Microsoft can eliminate that competition, just by refusing to sign the app.

 

Or they can refuse to sign all torrent clients, using piracy as an excuse.

 

That's why, I see it as black or white. The platform either supports censorship, or it doesn't.

 

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I know, which is exactly what you tried to do when you pretended like Sweeny was praising the consoles when he was actually saying it was good that the hardware aspect of the consoles was becoming more like the PC (in that they get a hardware update this shortly after release, and it would have backwards/forwards compatibility).

If you only say, what the benefits are, without mentioning any disadvantages, then you're praising.

 

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If he says something along the lines of "I think the Xbone Scorpio is good because it is more like a PC than the Xbone was", and you only read "I think the Xbone Scorpio is good", then that would not be his fault. It would be your fault.

That's not what I did.

 

I did notice, that he said: " I think the Xbone Scorpio is good because it is more like a PC than the Xbone was"

 

But, if he's so determined to criticize Microsoft for allegedly trying closing one of it's platforms, it's not normal for such a person, to say nothing about the Xbox being already closed.

 

He should have said something like:

 

"I think it's better than the Xbox One, because it's more like PC, but it still has a long way to go, before I consider it to be good enough, because it's still a closed platform, and I hate closed platforms".

 

It's possible, to highlight the improvements, while also criticizing the bad aspects.

 

 

Notice that, when he's criticizing Microsoft for closing Windows, he's using the same definition for closed platform, that I'm using.

 

And, when I say, that Xbox is closed, again, it's the same definition.

 

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

OS X is more open (contrary to popular beliefs)

So, when Apple tells you that you're only supposed to use MacOS on Apple hardware, and when Apple makes it very difficult for you to run MacOS on non-Apple hardware, you consider that as being more open?

 

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

"You can't trust the average Joe with controlling updates so it is for the greater good". People were cheering Microsoft on to remove control from users.

They didn't remove control features entirely, they only removed them from the average Joe, because advanced users can use the Group Policy Editor, or if they don't have the Pro version, they can edit the Registry, to set Automatic Updates to Notify before Download, Notify before Install or Disabled.

For hiding updates, Microsoft has released a special tool, or you can use a 3rd party tool.

 

Why? Because an average Joe can disable updates, and then complain about bugs or security problems, even if Microsoft has already fixed them in patches, which the average Joe didn't get, because he disabled updates.

 

But it's OK to allow an advanced user to control updates, because if something goes wrong, an advanced user is more likely to admit, that it was his fault.

 

 

Microsoft is trying to make an operating system, that's good for both average users and advanced users, which is an impossible task.

 

Since more problems have been caused by average users being stupid, than have been caused by advanced users, Microsoft had to make some sacrifices, and make it so, that advanced options are only available to people, who know what they're doing.

 

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If people think that the ability to hide updates were causing issues for the average Joe, because they were doing things they did not understand, then surely removing things like custom firewall policies and partitioning tools is for "the greater good" as well, right?

Being able to use more advanced features is not the only reason, why people install 3rd party firewalls.

 

Average users install them, because they have better overall security.

 

Same goes for antiviruses. Most people only care about detection rates, not advanced features.

 

If Microsoft tells people, that they can only use Windows Defender and Windows Firewall (which will happen it they remove Win32), then everybody would say, that Microsoft is damaging the security of Windows, by not allowing people to install antiviruses with better detection rates.

 

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

With the partitioning tool the user might wipe their entire drive!

Things like partitioning tools and data recovery tools aren't used by average users, they're mostly used by people in repair shops, to fix computers for average users.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, alextulu said:

When the company making the operating system controls which program you're allowed to run, then it's a closed software platform.

According to your (incorrect) definition at least.

 

2 hours ago, alextulu said:

Apple controls, what hardware you can use with their operating system, which makes it a closed hardware platform.

OK so it's a closed hardware platform (according to you), but is it a closed software platform?

I would argue (and would be correct) in saying that OS X is less closed down than Windows for example. A bit part of that is because OS X is heavily based on BSD, and is not only POSIX compliant, but also UNIX certified.

 

 

2 hours ago, alextulu said:

UWP is not closed, because you can sideload apps, which are not digitally signed by Microsoft.

I would argue that UWP is very closed, because it puts in a lot of restrictions on what users and developers can and can't do. You seem to have this (wrong) definition of open and closed where if you can install a program in more than one way then it is completely open, and if you can't then it is completely closed, and there is no middle ground. That would put Windows on the same open-ness scale as something like Trisquel (completely free version of Ubuntu, free as in freedom), which is quite hilarious.

 

 

2 hours ago, alextulu said:

You might have different opinions, as to what makes a platform closed, like the lack of options or customizability, but I think that we can all agree, that censorship is the worst.

No, it's not that I have a different opinion. It's that you are making up your own definitions which are incorrect. Terms like open platform, closed platform, open source, free software all have very specific definitions.

It's like saying 1+1=4, because your definition of 1 is the same as my definition of 2.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, alextulu said:

Notice that, when he's criticizing Microsoft for closing Windows, he's using the same definition for closed platform, that I'm using.

No her did not. He brought up the same aspect of "open vs closed" as you did, but I don't see any indication of him thinking that being able to side-load a program or not is the be-all and end-all aspect of open vs closed. Hell, Unreal Engine is open source. I think he understands that it makes it more open than some other engines.

 

 

2 hours ago, alextulu said:

So, when Apple tells you that you're only supposed to use MacOS on Apple hardware, and when Apple makes it very difficult for you to run MacOS on non-Apple hardware, you consider that as being more open?

That particular aspect about OS X is more closed down than Windows. The underlying framework such as XNU, bash and XQuartz are more open than on Windows. Hence why I said you can not judge "open-ness" as absolutes. It's a spectrum.

 

 

2 hours ago, alextulu said:

They didn't remove control features entirely, they only removed them from the average Joe, because advanced users can use the Group Policy Editor, or if they don't have the Pro version, they can edit the Registry, to set Automatic Updates to Notify before Download, Notify before Install or Disabled.

For hiding updates, Microsoft has released a special tool, or you can use a 3rd party tool.

Oh right, GPOs. Funny you would bring that up, because Microsoft has now disabled some of them in Windows 10 (and I fully expect them to disable more in the future). They are still there, but enabling/disabling them has no effect.

 

As for the tool, I should not have to download a special program to hide an update, nor should I constantly have to be on the lookout for updates to block. There should be an option for "don't install updates", and then give me a list of updates where I can check just the ones I want to install. You know, how it was in previous versions of Windows.

 

3 hours ago, alextulu said:

Microsoft is trying to make an operating system, that's good for both average users and advanced users, which is an impossible task.

It is not impossible. It's called having sane defaults and then having advanced options under a menu labeled "advanced".

 

 

3 hours ago, alextulu said:

Being able to use more advanced features is not the only reason, why people install 3rd party firewalls.

 

Average users install them, because they have better overall security.

If you think just installing a third party firewall will provide you with overall better security, then you do not understand how a firewall works.

 

3 hours ago, alextulu said:

Things like partitioning tools and data recovery tools aren't used by average users, they're mostly used by people in repair shops, to fix computers for average users.

Manual control over updates were not used by average users either. The vast majority used the default option which was to install updates automatically.

 

 

 

I wrote a lot more but LTT decided to delete my post and I don't feel like rewriting all of it, sorry.

[rn8686]

I dont even know if it would even be legal to do this as it would be very anti-competitive. Its not just games that run on win32, also apps like Adobe. People will just move to linux or steam os if need be. The only real way to bring sales to windows store with games is to sell their console exclusives to PC there. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, VAkena said:

Kinda hard to forget about Windows when it holds 80%+ desktop OS market share. You're right though, about UNIX vs MSDOS.

Yeah, modern Windows is based off of insecure and outdated software. I guess they are either trying to forget about that or trying to fix it now.

[alextulu]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I would argue that UWP is very closed, because it puts in a lot of restrictions on what users and developers can and can't do.

The way I see it, Microsoft designed the UWP and the Windows Store, as a platform for idiots, and Win32 for advanced users.

 

The reason, why it's designed for idiots, it's because, if you get apps from the Windows Store, you don't get viruses, and even if you do get viruses, UWP is so locked down, that it's very unlikely for a virus to do a lot of damage.

 

To prevent too many apps from slowing the system, or draining a laptop's batter, UWP apps can't run countinuously in the background, they can only run every 15 minutes, and for frequent notifications, they depend on a push server.

 

It's as idiot-proof, as Microsoft could make it, and making it idiot-proof is only possible with restrictions.

 

Maybe you don't know, but most people install programs, by clinking on "next", "OK" and "finish", without reading anything, and then they wonder, why the have so many toolbars, and why their system is so slow.

 

But it's not intended as a replacement for Win32, because there are things that Win32 can do, which UWP can't, and will never be able to do, as long as it has the sandbox.

 

Win32 and UWP are supposed to coexist, because like I said, Microsoft wants an operating system for everybody, both average and advanced users.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You seem to have this (wrong) definition of open and closed where if you can install a program in more than one way then it is completely open, and if you can't then it is completely closed, and there is no middle ground.

I never said, that simply being able to install in more than one way, is what makes a platform open.

 

What I said was, that being able to install any app without censorship is what makes it open.

 

Being able to sideload UWP apps makes the platform open, because it avoids the censorship.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

OK so it's a closed hardware platform (according to you), but is it a closed software platform?

Right now, no, MacOS isn't a closed software platform, but Apple has the potential of doing the same thing, that Microsoft is accused of allegedly trying to do, but nobody noticed.

 

Both Windows and MacOS have an app store.

 

Apps on the Mac App Store even have similar restrictions to UWP apps.

 

Both also support traditional desktops apps, in addition to apps from the app store.

 

Yet, for some reason, only Microsoft is being criticized, for allegedly trying to force the app store as the only way to get programs.

 

If Microsoft can do it, then Apple can do it as well. But nobody has ever said anything about this. Strange, isn't it?

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Terms like open platform, closed platform, open source, free software all have very specific definitions.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

That particular aspect about OS X is more closed down than Windows. The underlying framework such as XNU, bash and XQuartz are more open than on Windows. Hence why I said you can not judge "open-ness" as absolutes. It's a spectrum.

Seems to me, like you're confusing open platform with open source.

 

The terms open platform and closed platform, refer to "platform" as in development platform.

 

If developers can make any program for that platform, without censorship, then it's open.

 

If they require permission from the company making operating system, before releasing a program, then it's closed.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform

Quote

A closed platform, walled garden or closed ecosystem^[1][2] is a software system where the carrier or service provider has control over applications, content, and media, and restricts convenient access to non-approved applications or content.

Closed platform="restricts convenient access to non-approved applications or content"

 

Quote

This is in contrast to an open platform, where consumers generally have unrestricted access to applications, content, and much more.

Open platform="unrestricted access to applications, content, and much more"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_platform

Quote

An open platform does not mean it is open source

 

 

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Oh right, GPOs. Funny you would bring that up, because Microsoft has now disabled some of them in Windows 10 (and I fully expect them to disable more in the future). They are still there, but enabling/disabling them has no effect.

 

There is one thing, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

Windows Tips are only for beginners, who probably never even heard of the Group Policy Editor, so why did Microsoft disable it, in a place, where a beginner will never look for.

 

Disabling apps from the store and featured apps is for promoting the store, but is not actually a big deal, because they're UWP apps, so they have the same restrictions, meaning that they won't slow down your system, and you can also disable their notifications. They'll just use a few hundred megabytes on the harddrive and that's about it.

 

The only people, who will complain, are those who live in countries, where the Internet has data caps, because you can't stop them from being downloaded and updated.

 

About the lock screen, I don't know what to say. Has anybody ever complained about the lock screen? I honestly don't know.

 

When they start disabling more important stuff, then I'll be worried.

 

This is still beta software, let's just wait and see.

 

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Manual control over updates were not used by average users either. The vast majority used the default option which was to install updates automatically.

It's not just about updates, it's also about having the latest version of Windows.

 

Just like Microsoft tried to force people to upgrade from Win 7 and 8 to Win 10, when Win 10.1 (or whatever) is released, having that annoying update app won't be necessary, because it will be automatically downloaded and installed by Windows Update.

 

One problem with Windows is, that there's fragmentation on the platform, with different people using different versions of Windows.

 

Microsoft wants everybody on the latest version, not just because they want to promote the app store, but also because they want to stop fragmentation, and make it easier for developers.

 

I don't know about you, but I don't think, that the fact, that most people are running Win 7, which was released in 2009, is a good thing.

[suicidalfranco]

59 minutes ago, alextulu said:

Apps on the Mac App Store even have similar restrictions to UWP apps.

 

Both also support traditional desktops apps, in addition to apps from the app store.

 

Yet, for some reason, only Microsoft is being criticized, for allegedly trying to force the app store as the only way to get programs.

 

If Microsoft can do it, then Apple can do it as well. But nobody has ever said anything about this. Strange, isn't it?

No they aren't the same:

the App Store on MacOS is just a basic repository with a GUI on top.

The MAS (Mac App Store) doesn't force to use a a more restricted platform to publish apps on it. 

Apps on the MAS are as powerful as the apps you could get outside of it before the MAS came pre-installed.

The MAS serve only as another mean for devs to advertise their apps, no cut downs or restrictions required.

 

[alextulu]

25 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

No they aren't the same:

the App Store on MacOS is just a basic repository with a GUI on top.

The MAS (Mac App Store) doesn't force to use a a more restricted platform to publish apps on it. 

Apps on the MAS are as powerful as the apps you could get outside of it before the MAS came pre-installed.

The MAS serve only as another mean for devs to advertise their apps, no cut downs or restrictions required.

 

 

It doesn't have the exact same restrictions, but some of them are very similar:

 

- apps can't run in the background

- apps can't have root access

- apps run in a sandbox

 

Just because apps from the app store have the same GUI as traditional desktop apps, doesn't mean, that they're as good as desktop apps.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, alextulu said:

The way I see it, Microsoft designed the UWP and the Windows Store, as a platform for idiots, and Win32 for advanced users.

The reason, why it's designed for idiots, it's because, if you get apps from the Windows Store, you don't get viruses, and even if you do get viruses, UWP is so locked down, that it's very unlikely for a virus to do a lot of damage.

In order words, UWP is a more "closed" platform.

 

3 hours ago, alextulu said:

Win32 and UWP are supposed to coexist, because like I said, Microsoft wants an operating system for everybody, both average and advanced users.

If they want an OS for both average and advanced users then they have done an incredibly poor job of supporting the advanced users. They are currently removing more and more things "advanced users" want, such as some GPOs for regaining some control over the OS.

I don't know why you think they are trying to make the OS appealing and suitable for advanced users, because their current actions shows that they are only interested in the average users.

 

3 hours ago, alextulu said:

I never said, that simply being able to install in more than one way, is what makes a platform open.

 

What I said was, that being able to install any app without censorship is what makes it open.

 

Being able to sideload UWP apps makes the platform open, because it avoids the censorship.

Did you read this back before your posted it? Because you are contradicting yourself.

>"I never said simply being able to install in more than one way makes the platform open"

>"Being able to sideload UWP apps makes the platform open"

 

You are contradicting yourself.

By the way, Microsoft has built in a function in Windows 10 to remotely uninstall software from your computer. Wanna know how I know this? Because they have used it against me and other people already. And those were win32 programs by the way.

 

Do you not agree that remotely removing software from my computer is censorship?

 

 

3 hours ago, alextulu said:

Apps on the Mac App Store even have similar restrictions to UWP apps.

 

Both also support traditional desktops apps, in addition to apps from the app store.

 

Yet, for some reason, only Microsoft is being criticized, for allegedly trying to force the app store as the only way to get programs.

 

If Microsoft can do it, then Apple can do it as well. But nobody has ever said anything about this. Strange, isn't it?

No it doesn't, because the Mac App store is basically just a fancy GUI for a package manager and a repo. It is not a locked down "ecosystem" with brand new APIs and programming languages/syntax.

 

If you don't even know the difference then you should not comment about it. Stop posting, do a bit of reading and then come back.

 

3 hours ago, alextulu said:

Seems to me, like you're confusing open platform with open source.

 

The terms open platform and closed platform, refer to "platform" as in development platform.

 

If developers can make any program for that platform, without censorship, then it's open.

 

If they require permission from the company making operating system, before releasing a program, then it's closed.

Nope, I completely understand all of the things I mentioned.

Since you seem to like Wikipedia, here is what it has to say about open platforms. If you had read it then you would know that it is about more than just a black and white "can you install a program from more than once source":

Quote

In computing, an open platform describes a software system which is based on open standards, such as published and fully documented external application programming interfaces (API) that allow using the software to function in other ways than the original programmer intended, without requiring modification of the source code. Using these interfaces, a third party could integrate with the platform to add functionality. The opposite is a closed platform.

All three things I highlighted there are not true for UWP. It is not based on open standards, the APIs are very restricted and can not be used for things other than their original intention (for security reasons) and third parties can not integrate with UWP to add functionality.

 

By your definition and logic, DirectX is just as open as OpenGL, which is bullshit.
There are many aspects to "open-ness" and your definition only includes a single thing, which is why it is wrong.

 

 

3 hours ago, alextulu said:

When they start disabling more important stuff, then I'll be worried.

Remember the boiling frog.

You should spend less time making excuses and more time protesting. Otherwise you won't realize what is going on before it is too late.

 

 

5 hours ago, alextulu said:

I don't know about you, but I don't think, that the fact, that most people are running Win 7, which was released in 2009, is a good thing.

I don't think people using Windows 7 is necessarily a good or a bad thing. I am rather indifferent about it.

[alextulu]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

>"I never said simply being able to install in more than one way makes the platform open"

>"Being able to sideload UWP apps makes the platform open"

 

You are contradicting yourself.

You've accused me of not being able to read, and now it's my turn:

 

I said: " Being able to sideload UWP apps makes the platform open, because it avoids the censorship."

 

The fact, that sideloding avoids the censorship, which exists in the store, is what makes UWP open, not the fact that UWP has 2 ways of installing.

 

Win32 only has one way of installing, and it's an open platform, because it doesn't have censorship.

 

27 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

By the way, Microsoft has built in a function in Windows 10 to remotely uninstall software from your computer. Wanna know how I know this? Because they have used it against me and other people already. And those were win32 programs by the way.

One example, is an app downloaded from the store, and the store does have censorship.

It's only when you sideload, that you don't have censorship.

 

As for the Win32 apps, that have been removed, I've also found this article;

 

http://www.ghacks.net/2015/11/24/beware-latest-windows-10-update-may-remove-programs-automatically/

Quote

Then, all reports indicate that the forcefully uninstalled software would install and run fine on the system without issues. This makes it more likely that a bug caused the issue and that it was not a deliberate action programmed into the update.

The only time, when programs were removed, was when the update happened.

 

After the programs were removed, he was able to successfully install them again, and run them without any issues.

 

It also says:

Quote

 

Others report that programs like CPU-Z, AMD Catalyst Control Center or CPUID were removed as well during the upgrade.

AMD's Catalyst Control Center needs to be mentioned specifically

 

AMD Catalyst Control Center. Why would Microsoft intentionally break a driver.

 

It has to be a bug and not intentional, which is also the article's conclusion.

 

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No it doesn't, because the Mac App store is basically just a fancy GUI for a package manager and a repo. It is not a locked down "ecosystem" with brand new APIs and programming languages/syntax.

 

If you don't even know the difference then you should not comment about it. Stop posting, do a bit of reading and then come back.

What? Do a bit of reading? How about this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_App_Store

Quote

 

Like the iOS App Store, the Mac App Store is regulated by Apple.

 

To submit an app for consideration, the developer (or his company) must be a member of the Apple Developer Program. As of July 2015, the membership fee is $99 USD.^[7]

 

Applications must be approved by Apple before becoming available on the store. Disallowed types of applications revealed by Apple include:^[8][9]

• Software that changes the native user interface elements or behaviors of OS X.
• Software that does not comply with the Apple Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
• Software that is similar in look or function to current Apple products (e.g. Mac App Store, Finder, iTunes, iChat, etc.).
• Software similar to other software that is already released in the Mac App Store (e.g. Adobe Illustrator and CorelDraw, Photoshop Lightroom & Apple Aperture, Cinema 4D and 3D Max, etc.).
• Software that contains or displays pornographic material.
• Software that is or installs shared components (kernel extensions, browser plugins, QuickTime components, etc.).
• Software that provides content or services that expire.
• Software that does not run on the currently shipping version of OS X.
• Beta, demo, trial, or test versions of software.
• Software that references trademarks unless the developer has explicit permission to use them.
• Free software licensed only under the GPL (because the App Store Terms of Service imposes additional restrictions incompatible with the GPL).^[10][11]
• Apps that use software libraries that are either optionally installed or deemed deprecated by Apple for OS X users. Examples given:
  • Apple's implementation of Java SE 6 (although the OpenJDK implementation of Java SE 7 is permitted if bundled into the app).^[12][13]
  • PowerPC code requiring Rosetta.
• New apps that are not sandboxed (as of June 1, 2012).^[14] At WWDC 2013, Apple announced that this rule no longer applied, and that so-called "temporary exceptions" may be used when the app has a reason not to be sandboxed.

 

It doesn't say in this article, but apps also can't have root access, and can't run in the background.

 

54 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

based on open standards, such as published and fully documented external application programming interfaces (API) that allow using the software to function in other ways than the original programmer intended, without requiring modification of the source code.

Win32 and WinRT APIs are published and fully documented, but for the second part:

 

"that allow using the software to function in other ways than the original programmer intended, without requiring modification of the source code."

 

The article describes the platform itself, so the "software" is the operating system.

 

When you make an app, then that app extends the functionality of the operating system, without the operating system's code being modified.

 

It allows you to use the operating system in a new way, that the operating system's developer probably never intended.

 

For example, Microsoft definitely never intended for Windows to be used for downloading torrents to pirate stuff.

 

 

If you say, that by "software" it means app, then it doesn't make any sense.

 

How exactly, can an API allow a app to be used in a different way, than the app's programmer intended?

 

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Remember the boiling frog.

People are already protesting now on forums for stuff, that not that important.

 

If they remove important things from the Group Policy Editor, then there's going to be a huge backlash.

[Misanthrope]

On retrospect is a good thing I included the initial, small letter disclaimer to the OP.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

You've accused me of not being able to read, and now it's my turn:

 

I said: " Being able to sideload UWP apps makes the platform open, because it avoids the censorship."

 

The fact, that sideloding avoids the censorship, which exists in the store, is what makes UWP open, not the fact that UWP has 2 ways of installing.

 

Win32 only has one way of installing, and it's an open platform, because it doesn't have censorship.

It's still not an open platform even without the "censorship" (which they can still do, since they can remotely uninstall programs). It does not fulfill the other aspects of an open platform.

 

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

It has to be a bug and not intentional, which is also the article's conclusion.

Yeah, sure. It was a "bug" that Microsoft uninstalled software from peoples' computers. They totally did not design that feature so that they could delete software from my computer if they so desired. The message which clearly said the program had been deleted? Totally a bug too. Letters just randomly appeared into a sentence with perfect English, informing users that Microsoft had deleted their programs without their consent.

Totally just a bug. Won't happen again.

/sarcasm

 

How stupid do you have to be to believe something like that? Even if it was a mistake that they deleted some specific apps, the function they created which can delete software on your computer was clearly not a mistake. They created that function on purpose so that they could remove programs if they so desired. Again, this is like a criminal holding a gun to your head and saying "oh don't worry, I am just holding this gun here. I totally won't do anything with it though", and you going "yeah why are you so worried? He fired a round and hit someone just a few minutes ago but that was just a mistake. You should let him keep his gun pointed towards you".

 

The entire function which deletes programs from my computer without my explicit consent should just fuck off. It should never even have been created to begin with because it is not Microsoft's responsibility to install/delete things on my computer. It is my computer and it is my responsibility.

 

 

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

What? Do a bit of reading? How about this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_App_Store

<snip>

It doesn't say in this article, but apps also can't have root access, and can't run in the background.

There is a huge difference though, and that's the APIs and programming languages allowed. Why do you think that Photoshop is available in the Mac app store but an UWP version of Photoshop doesn't exist?

Hint: It's because for the Mac app store they could basically just submit their program as is, with barely any changes (if any at all) and it just worked. They did not have to rewrite half the program to make it compatible with brand new APIs and programing languages like they would have for UWP.

That's why I said the app store was not an ecosystem with brand new APIs and programing languages/syntax (unlike UWP). You seem to have conveniently missed that part of my post.

 

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

Win32 and WinRT APIs are published and fully documented, but for the second part:

 

"that allow using the software to function in other ways than the original programmer intended, without requiring modification of the source code."

 

The article describes the platform itself, so the "software" is the operating system.

 

When you make an app, then that app extends the functionality of the operating system, without the operating system's code being modified.

 

It allows you to use the operating system in a new way, that the operating system's developer probably never intended.

 

For example, Microsoft definitely never intended for Windows to be used for downloading torrents to pirate stuff.

 

 

If you say, that by "software" it means app, then it doesn't make any sense.

 

How exactly, can an API allow a app to be used in a different way, than the app's programmer intended?

I know there is documentation for the UWP APIs, which is why I did not highlight that part. But tell me, does UWP really allow me to create software with functions Microsoft did not intend me to have? For example modifying the memory of another UWP application? Yet again we arrive at the problem of defining something as either fully open or fully closed.

This is exactly why I said you have to think of open vs closed platforms as a spectrum and not a binary thing.

 

UWP is not based on open standards.

It puts a lot of restrictions on what developers and users can do with software (as in, you can't add whichever functionality you want).

 

Fair point on the third thing I highlighted, but the other two points are still very much true.

 

 

1 hour ago, alextulu said:

People are already protesting now on forums for stuff, that not that important.

 

If they remove important things from the Group Policy Editor, then there's going to be a huge backlash.

This forum is full of Microsoft apologists. Microsoft could probably run over their dogs and people would still find excuses like "oh I didn't want that dog anyway. Now if they ran over my mom that would have been a different story, but they didn't so don't hate on MS please".

Some people are protesting, because removing control from users is never a good thing, but the problem is that we have people like you defending them. They can only get away with restricting their users if people like you allow them.

Have you ever heard the poem Niemöller made about how the Nazis rose to power? It goes like this:

Quote

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

 

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

 

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

 

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

This, plus the "boiling frogs" anecdote is exactly what is happening in Windows 10.

We see more and more power and freedom being taken away from users, and you just keep making excuses for why it isn't that bad. Even worse, you argue against people who do see what dangerous precedent these actions set.

 

Microsoft is not a nice company. You should expect the worst from them because the company has literally been sentenced for breaking the law multiple times in order to harm consumers and competitors. You are trusting an ex-convict to not fire the gun you are willingly letting him hold against your head. He should not be allowed to have a gun at all. Microsoft can not be trusted with powers that can be used to harm consumers for their own benefits, because they have time and time again proven that they will abuse such powers.

 

Also, what do you think will happen if they do remove things you classify as "important"? You will just get the same old arguments as we did before.

• "Well the average Joe doesn't need it so it's okay, you're just a vocal minority. It's for the greater good."
• "Microsoft can do whatever they want with their OS. You don't own it."
• "<insert thing you think is important> isn't that important anyway. If they remove something that's actually important then there will be a huge backlash."
• "If you don't like it, don't use it"

 

These are all things I have heard when Microsoft does something that negatively impacts me, such as removing control over updates.

[alextulu]

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The message which clearly said the program had been deleted? Totally a bug too.

The bug, was that, those programs needed to be manually re-installed.

 

Microsoft knew about the bug, but couldn't fix it, so they created the message, in case that bug was encountered.

 

Otherwise, why would Windows allow you to reinstall them, and then use them without issues.

 

Just like the messages saying "program not responding" or "program has crashed" have been made just in case.

 

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

It's because for the Mac app store they could basically just submit their program as is, with barely any changes (if any at all) and it just worked. They did not have to rewrite half the program to make it compatible with brand new APIs and programing languages like they would have for UWP.

What you're saying, is that it would actually be easier for Apple to force the store as the only way to get apps (and then put as much censorship as they want), then it would be for Microsoft.

 

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

does UWP really allow me to create software with functions Microsoft did not intend me to have? For example modifying the memory of another UWP application? Yet again we arrive at the problem of defining something as either fully open or fully closed.

The article doesn't say anything, about how advanced the "function" can be. It can be anything.

 

It can be something as simple as somebody making an app, than can open a new type of file, which Windows can't by itself.

 

The fact, that one API has more limitations than another, is an entirely separate problem, which has nothing to do with open platform vs closed platform.

 

Open platform vs closed platform is about censorship.

 

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

UWP is not based on open standards.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

Quote

An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process). There is no single definition and interpretations vary with usage.

So, the only thing, that we know for sure, is that it's publicly available.

 

Everybody has a different definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard#Specific_definitions_of_an_open_standard

 

Open platform is not a spectrum, but open standard is.

 

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Microsoft could probably run over their dogs and people would still find excuses like "oh I didn't want that dog anyway.

Like when Microsoft had to discontinue Games for Windows Live.

 

Or when they tried to put that DRM on the Xbox One, but had to remove it in just a few days.

 

Or when most people refused to upgrade to Windows Me, Windows Vista and Windows 8.

 

I refused to upgrade to Windows 8. I don't accept everything, that Microsoft makes. I'm not an apologist.

 

I also hate all consoles, including the Xbox.

 

The way I see it, Microsoft is poking the bear, trying to see how hard they can poke, without waking it.

 

Sometimes they accidentally poke too hard. (like in the above examples)

 

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Have you ever heard the poem Niemöller made about how the Nazis rose to power?

What is not mentioned, is that the Nazi government also came for anybody, who disagreed with the government.

 

If he did speak out for the other guys, he would have been imprisoned or killed.

 

That's why he tried to not get attention to himself, and hope that nobody notices him, which is the opposite of what I'm doing.

 

Can Microsoft do that? Imprison or kill?

 

I say, what I say, because that's my opinion, not because Microsoft is threatening to imprison or kill me.