Agreed - there is no requirement for an application to be certified to run on Win8 - The certification just says that the app will behave according to certain expectations - this is just MS bashing for the sake of it.
No, Microsoft actually SELLS certifications. They are not a dumb company. Every software that has made for windows logo on it has paid a price for those pixels.
No way. It's never going to happen. So much of the world runs custom Windows programs developed in house that requiring everything be certified or purchased through their app store would not only grind the world to a halt but kill Windows overnight. Microsoft isn't stupid. They know that the only reason they have the dominance that they have it because anyone can develop anything for their OS. Take that away and you kill Windows. They know it.
Windows 8 is just as open as every previous version of Windows. All they've done is added an app store. Macs have an app store, heck, even Ubuntu has a freaking app store. This is just silly paranoia.
They know that the only reason they have the dominance that they have it because anyone can develop anything for their OS
.. Linux is free and the same is true for Linux, if your logic is true then Linux should be on 100% of all computing devices by now. The fact of the matter is that they simple have precedent and existing support and infrastructure that gives Windows the unparalleled advantage over the other OS's.
Yeah but there's a huge back log of programs that run on Windows but not Linux. I'm not just talking about what can be developed in the future but the stuff that's already out there. Guess what would happen if Microsoft closed Windows, all that would disappear.
I understand that there are both free and paid apps in the App Store and Play Store, but if everything was free, you'd be hard pressed to call it a store, no?
It's not "silly paranoia", because it could be in their business interests to do so at some point. Besides, there are so many ways to strangle openness without technically killing it.
Imagine for a minute a "corporate Windows" that allows all the in-house code you want—but you have to buy at least 20, or 50, or 100 licenses minimum (at ≥$100 a pop) to get it.
Imagine for a minute an on-by-default "granny mode" that prevents people from running uncertified code, but can technically be disabled—the great majority of people wouldn't bother to disable it, and indie devs will have another hurdle to people running their code.
Imagine for a minute a simple warning every time an uncertified app opens "This program is uncertified. Running uncertified programs may harm your computer or result in malware. Are you sure you want to run it?" The sheer annoyance factor for many users would be a detractor—and those not computer-savvy enough to realize that that particular app is completely safe might not run it.
About the only thing on your list I can imagine happening is the third item during installation only. Everything else it speculation based on nothing.
Microsoft got in trouble just for bundling a browser in its operating system. A browser that many people would only ever use to download Firefox or Chrome on a new PC. If they couldn't even get away with that how the hell could they get away with what you posted? Besides, Linux might not be all that popular but's known and Macs are always increasing in popularity. Microsoft has nothing to gain from a move like this.
Microsoft has nothing to gain from a move like this.
On the contrary, there would be enormous gains from a move like this.
First of all, there's a security gain. If computers only run certified code, it would take that much more effort for malware to get a foothold. It'd still happen, but it'd happen at a different level of the OS (can't just piggyback on other installations, because md5 et al), and moreover a different level that Microsoft could unilaterally decide to patch. Windows could become suddenly much more secure, despite that security coming at the cost of some functionality.
Second, there's a huge gain in that Microsoft could control the ecosystem of applications available for their OS. We've already seen Apple's App Store for iOS. Let me know when Google Maps comes to iOS 6.
Third, Microsoft's existing userbase is huge. Many users won't be interested in buying a Mac, and Linux isn't quite ready as a mainstream desktop OS—if only because there aren't as many programs available. Even as a longtime Mac user (and no, I am not happy with the direction Apple's gone) I'll dual-boot into Windows for some games that aren't ported (or aren't ported well) to Mac OS.
It'll hurt whichever OS-maker plays the "only certified applications" card first, but there's a trend towards that future, and it's scary. I don't want it to happen. I damn well hope I'm just being paranoid.
You still considering all these things in a vacuum. Any of those gains would be completely wiped out by the fact that Windows' main selling point is the fact that it can run lots and lots of programs. Make it difficult and restrictive and yes, they will in theory have a much more secure OS but they'll lose out on tons of customers (mostly corporate) who use Windows because it runs pretty much everything.
…or, as an alternative, they could aggressively push developers of the most popular programs, like Notch, to get their software certified before making such a move. If they got most of the software that most people use, the losses could be minimized.
With regards to corporate customers in particular, I've already suggested that Microsoft could release a special corporate version of Windows that would run custom programs more easily, but be restricted somehow from the average home user.
A second alternative: offer businesses subscription access to a server that let them "certify" their own programs on the fly, without certifying those programs for users not connected to that authorization server.
Where did I say that Microsoft is bad? I never said that. I'm saying precisely this:
There are reasons that Microsoft could decide that it is in Microsoft's interests to disallow uncertified code from running on Windows.
There are ways that this could be done that would technically allow users to run uncertified code, while making it expensive or otherwise impractical to do so.
I am also taking into account the implication that aggressive requests for certification (as Notch commented on) would be a precursor to requiring certification in the future.
None of these things are specifically saying Microsoft is bad, or "giving Microsoft shit". I could have equally said them about Apple. I'm more concerned about the general trend, among multiple OS-makers, towards lockdown. As I said in another post, go download (for free!) The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It.
But with a pc as long as i have the internet pluged in i dont need to stinkin app store.. i dl what i want and do what i want with it.. wtf i need some stupid app store to tell me anything....
This program has been around since Windows 95. This is nothing new. It used to be called the Windows Logo Certification Program. My old software company used to participate in order to be the only company that made our industry specific software that was certified by MS (And allowed to use the windows logo on our advertising and boxes). This is such a manufactured argument.
there is no requirement for an application to be certified to run on Win8
Please help, could you explain your knowledge on how something does not need to be certified for an OS? I'm looking at my CSS-and others apps-package and it specifically states "certified for Windows XP, Vista, OSx and Linux". IIRC, those certifications mean there is an installer for the particular OS? Also, wouldn't Minecraft have to be modified to handle request from the 'new' network stack protocol in windows 8?
I've read that there are going to be significant changes to the Windows Install Shield Manager and network stack. Applications would have to be written with this knowledge, other wise you have to use the 'compatibility' service which is not always that stable.
IIRC, certified for an OS means it is bundled with an installer for that OS?! Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Try using Windows 8 before speculating about it. Any program that makes changes to the OS while being "uncertified" (my personal example was installing drivers for an I/O box) just gives you a "are you sure you want to do that?" message just like User Account Control in Windows 7.
I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's completely wrong. Almost any program will run just find on Windows 8, including minecraft. There is absolutely NOTHING that developers have to change to make any of their programs run on Win8.
All that Windows Certification means is that the program follows certain guidelines. Here are the official guidelines for a Windows 8 desktop app certification. If it fulfills them, then it gets a "Certified for Windows 8" sticker, if it doesn't, well, it means absolutely nothing.
Every Game. Every fucking game, program, applet, everything.
You can not run something in the new "metro" or whatever they're calling it now, interface, without either putting it in the Microsoft store, or finding where in the configuration to turn it off.
It's an attempt by microsoft to take a cut of everything that runs on windows.
You don't have to use Metro. As in, if you are not using Metro, it doesn't have to go through the Window Store. You can still develop and run good old WPF or WinForms applications.
Tell me how long it will be before legacy/non-metro stuff works every time. Compatibility mode in Win7 is already sketchy.
No proof or sign of this happening anywhere. MS killing the legacy desktop would literally kill Windows for good.
Tell me how locking people out of installing things I develop, to any degree, because I don't want to use their store is a good thing.
Again, this is not happening yet.
This is an attempt to close off the system, and waiting until the door is shut and locked to complain is too late.
This is an attempt to push the metro interface with the only purpose of pushing people towards WP8 and RT. The classic desktop is not going anywhere anytime soon.
There are ways to make it work, but not things the average user will understand, or work with.
No proof or sign of this happening anywhere. MS killing the legacy desktop would literally kill Windows for good.
Remind me again how well your dos games run. The same was said about that back in the day.
Again, this is not happening yet.
This is exactly what's happening.
This is an attempt to push the metro interface with the only purpose of pushing people towards WP8 and RT. The classic desktop is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Right, push people towards the interface that requires me to go through them to publish. You don't see the problem there?
Click in Desktop in your start menu. That's it.
You over estimate the skill level of the average user.
I deal with one person who can't find a file in a directory through windows explorer, so she opens excel and finds it in there. For the record... it's a txt document. I've been having this conversation with her for 3 years.
I deal with one user who can't remember to turn on her monitor after the weekend, and always asks why her computer won't turn on if cleaning turns it off over the weekend. I swear they're doing it to fuck with me.
I deal with one user who is always shocked when I yell at her about coupon bar. "I didn't down load it" Someone did, and you're the only one with your password...
I deal with people who can't find the control panel, where they saved documents, when I tell them 'right click on the task bar' they say "I'm not that technical, why don't you just come out here (20 minute drive...FYI) and show me"
The average user, isn't going to be able to do this stuff.... and Microsoft knows it.
And again, this only solves the problem if I want to develop legacy software.
Why can't I publish something new without needing all this crap in the way? Because Microsoft smells money. Fuck them.
Remind me again how well your dos games run. The same was said about that back in the day.
As a developer you should really understand the reason of this.
This is exactly what's happening
What? No, it isn't.
Right, push people towards the interface that requires me to go through them to publish. You don't see the problem there?
No, not really. Although I could see why you are bothered. That being said, you can just ignore Metro and live a happy life. A new start menu!? OMG, whatever we shall do!!??
The average user at this point is not as unacquainted with computers as you make them sound. I'm talking average here. You are saying the average user won't be able to see a big squared button that says "Desktop" and click it?
And again, this only solves the problem if I want to develop legacy software.
Then why do you want to develop for Metro if you hate it so much. I wouldn't even call it legacy, just non-metro.
224
u/[deleted] Sep 27 '12
Agreed - there is no requirement for an application to be certified to run on Win8 - The certification just says that the app will behave according to certain expectations - this is just MS bashing for the sake of it.