Windows Users Should Want Windows 10 S to Succeed

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A lot of people have already written Windows 10 S off because it only works with Windows Store apps, but this guy is saying that we should all give it a chance. The point he seems to be making is that the Store is actually a great idea: apps always install cleanly and have a consistent approach when it comes to aspects such as dependencies, how they update themselves, etc. This method also allows for greater security. Do you think the writer is clinically insane, or could we really see a future where all programs are build using UWP and served through the Windows Store?

While many Windows users will say they want the freedom and flexibility to install anything from anywhere, the lived experience of this often leaves a lot to be desired. Applications routinely don't install or uninstall cleanly, leaving scattered remnants of their existence on your system. Apps with complex dependencies will often leave those dependencies in place when you uninstall, or they will sometimes remove those dependencies even though other apps still depend on them. Application maintenance is also annoying. Some apps will install background services to update themselves; others will check for updates when you run them and ask to be updated.
 
Nope. A closed ecosystem and restricted app store is everything Windows users should be fighting against! In the end, though, Microsoft's own incompetence and inability to deliver REMOTELY close to what their customers want will doom the effort. Just watch. It will be just like their Windows Phone, Kin, Zune, and Xbox efforts.
 
jnemesh said:
Nope. A closed ecosystem and restricted app store is everything Windows users should be fighting against! In the end, though, Microsoft's own incompetence and inability to deliver REMOTELY close to what their customers want will doom the effort. Just watch. It will be just like their Windows Phone, Kin, Zune, and Xbox efforts.
Click to expand...

That's not even remotely the argument made in the article. The author clearly states that it's 'implausible' for Microsoft to ever restrict all versions of Windows to the Store because of the sheer amount of legacy and business apps that won't ever make it into the Store.

The arugement being made is that this version of Windows will at least kick start a healthy Store app ecosystem. I would have to agree. If more apps are available through the Store I'd rather install them that way than to navigate to a site and download an installer (which, in the case of Handbrake for Mac OS over the weekend, can easily compromise your system).

It may be hard for 'legacy' users to agree on this but I would have to say that having a healthy selection of Store apps in addition to the traditional method of getting/installing apps actually gives us a lot more flexibility. It's simply more choices being offered.
 
Sonicks said:
That's not even remotely the argument made in the article. The author clearly states that it's 'implausible' for Microsoft to ever restrict all versions of Windows to the Store because of the sheer amount of legacy and business apps that won't ever make it into the Store.

The arugement being made is that this version of Windows will at least kick start a healthy Store app ecosystem. I would have to agree. If more apps are available through the Store I'd rather install them that way than to navigate to a site and download an installer (which, in the case of Handbrake for Mac OS over the weekend, can easily compromise your system).

It may be hard for 'legacy' users to agree on this but I would have to say that having a healthy selection of Store apps in addition to the traditional method of getting/installing apps actually gives us a lot more flexibility. It's simply more choices being offered.
Click to expand...
Idiot proofing is the death knell to innovation.
 
Do you think the writer is clinically insane, or could we really see a future where all programs are build using UWP and served through the Windows Store?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think he's insane, I do not want S to succeed, and MS creams at the thought of UWP only delivery.
 
Armenius said:
Idiot proofing is the death knell to innovation.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the cynical way to view it. I'm a bit more optimistic in that I simply see this as more choices being offered.

I will eat those words if Microsoft ever does make every non-Business Windows version Store restricted but I seriously doubt they will ever do that. They just aren't that stupid. Freedom to do whatever with the OS is the only remaining thing to differentiate it from Mac OS so they cannot go down a 100% Store restricted route.
 
rezerekted said:
"This method also allows for greater security."

Any apps I have ever installed wants access to places they have no business, like camera and contacts. That makes them insecure.
Click to expand...
You do know the alternative regular windows applications just get that access and not tell you. If we go back further to the XP days when programs just took admin access for no reason. Not that I'm endorsing such a closed system, just saying.
 
Semantics said:
You do know the alternative regular windows applications just get that access and not tell you. If we go back further to the XP days when programs just took admin access for no reason. Not that I'm endorsing such a closed system, just saying.
Click to expand...

No progs have ever wanted access to the camera. All apps are spyware, IMO, and I would never pay a penny for any of them. On my PC there is no camera attached but on my android tablet I have to use an app that blocks access to the camera because I trust no one.
 
Semantics said:
You do know the alternative regular windows applications just get that access and not tell you. If we go back further to the XP days when programs just took admin access for no reason. Not that I'm endorsing such a closed system, just saying.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I thought when I read that post....

Apps found through the traditional channels (going to a website, downloading an installer, etc..) have access to whatever they want and will never tell you about it. Hell, it's worse when the installer out-right requires administrative privileges. That's the giant red flag there (I'm looking at you, you piece of shit Adobe Flash Player)
 
jnemesh said:
Nope. A closed ecosystem and restricted app store is everything Windows users should be fighting against! In the end, though, Microsoft's own incompetence and inability to deliver REMOTELY close to what their customers want will doom the effort. Just watch. It will be just like their Windows Phone, Kin, Zune, and Xbox efforts.
Click to expand...

This. The majority of programs I run don't even have formal installers. No thanks.
 
jnemesh said:
Nope. A closed ecosystem and restricted app store is everything Windows users should be fighting against! In the end, though, Microsoft's own incompetence and inability to deliver REMOTELY close to what their customers want will doom the effort. Just watch. It will be just like their Windows Phone, Kin, Zune, and Xbox efforts.
Click to expand...

UWAs are not restricted to the Windows Store. Windows 10 S restricts app access to the Windows Store as a matter of control which does have benefit in today's world for certain organizations and places that don't need wide open systems with access to everything in the Windows ecosystem, particularly the malware. Windows 10 S makes a lot of sense but it also can be confusing.
 
jnemesh said:
Nope. A closed ecosystem and restricted app store is everything Windows users should be fighting against! In the end, though, Microsoft's own incompetence and inability to deliver REMOTELY close to what their customers want will doom the effort. Just watch. It will be just like their Windows Phone, Kin, Zune, and Xbox efforts.
Click to expand...

I agree. But unfortunately, at best, all I think we can achieve is a delaying action.

Ultimately Microsoft will achieve it's wish, of building it's walled garden, and putting most of it's users in it.

They have shown they will throw everything into this fight and keep fighting the same battle again and again till it works.

Windows RT, fails, so we get another crack at it with Windows S. Most people are running Windows 7, so we get free upgrade offers, that isn't enough so we get Nagware installed on our systems...

Windows 7 support will end, and new Windows PC will be forced to have versions that suppor the walled garden.

Imagine if All PCs come with Windows S, and user have to pay $50 to unlock full access. How many will? Maybe a lot today. How many 5 years from now?

Ultimately we will lose. :(
 
Snowdog said:
I agree. But unfortunately, at best, all I think we can achieve is a delaying action.

Ultimately Microsoft will achieve it's wish, of building it's walled garden, and putting most of it's users in it.

They have shown they will throw everything into this fight and keep fighting the same battle again and again till it works.

Windows RT, fails, so we get another crack at it with Windows S. Most people are running Windows 7, so we get free upgrade offers, that isn't enough so we get Nagware installed on our systems...

Windows 7 support will end, and new Windows PC will be forced to have versions that suppor the walled garden.

Imagine if All PCs come with Windows S, and user have to pay $50 to unlock full access. How many will? Maybe a lot today. How many 5 years from now?

Ultimately we will lose. :(
Click to expand...
Oh God don't give them any ideas. This is something they could push on OEM. I can see OEM going for it if MS gives the windows S licence for free.
 
Last edited:
I would like the option to do either. I.E. This would be a great thing for my grandmothers computer that I am constantly fixing because she installs random crap. She's at least gotten better at looking at the store anyway for her random games and stuff at least which has been helpful. And yes I know there is a lot of shady crap on the store too, but at least the way the system is set up they generally uninstall cleanly.
 
or how many install programs do you have to be careful and read because a check box left checked installs another program? That could go die in a fire any day now. Also in the same fire are annoying surveys that have to be opened in a browser automatically when you uninstall something.

And everything needs to have its own line in your startup so you have to go through and disable after any install because it wants to run in the background at bootup. No I would rather the program take longer to start than my OS.
 
This feels roughly akin to the Apple approach, if Apple had started with configurable hardware and an open development environment.

I think the problem with the Windows Store can be summed up with an anecdote: a Windows Store team came to my university and solicited Windows applications from student developers with the promise that they could get them published easily. They simply wanted volume, not necessarily quality.

This isn't to suggest students are incapable of developing quality software, or that established companies always produce it themselves. But there are a lot of practices and procedures that go into making quality software with long term support in mind. "Long term" is generally a four letter word for students.

The Store concept is great for Microsoft, could be good for consumers, and has legs for developers. All of this is predicated on the end user's perception that the Store means quality. Which it doesn't, so it isn't.
 
Sonicks said:
That's not even remotely the argument made in the article. The author clearly states that it's 'implausible' for Microsoft to ever restrict all versions of Windows to the Store because of the sheer amount of legacy and business apps that won't ever make it into the Store.

The arugement being made is that this version of Windows will at least kick start a healthy Store app ecosystem. I would have to agree. If more apps are available through the Store I'd rather install them that way than to navigate to a site and download an installer (which, in the case of Handbrake for Mac OS over the weekend, can easily compromise your system).

It may be hard for 'legacy' users to agree on this but I would have to say that having a healthy selection of Store apps in addition to the traditional method of getting/installing apps actually gives us a lot more flexibility. It's simply more choices being offered.
Click to expand...

Fear-mongers like you are the type that disgust me. A curated app-store won't magically change the level of protection Windows users currently enjoy.

The typical experience of downloading a popular windows application is fairly safe, because most of these major providers host and curate their own downloads. That won't change at all if you go to the Windows Store. There will still be the same almost 99.9% success, with the occasional malware download.

The experience of downloading less-popular applications can be sketchy, but you'd be very unlikely to find these in a curated app store (or they might be malware posing as real apps), so the experience doesn't change.

And no, it's no safer than downloading it yourself. A big popular app store makes you a big popular target.

http://thehackernews.com/2017/04/android-malware-playstore.html

http://www.darkreading.com/applicat...-incident-trouble-in-paradise-/a/d-id/1324016

And of course there' s the ongoing problem with apps impersonating other apps, which can easily load malware on your system., So no, in reality a "curated" set of applications is no such thing. The more crap you have available, the easier it is for the Trojans to hide in plain sight.

And in the end of the day, zero-day exploits have the same level of effectiveness no matter where they come from. You can be sure that if people start using the Windows Store, it will get another big target.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Madoc
like this
whateverer said:
Fear-mongers like you are the type that disgust me. A curated app-store won't magically change the level of protection Windows users currently enjoy.

The typical experience of downloading a popular windows application is fairly safe, because most of these major providers host and curate their own downloads. That won't change at all if you go to the Windows Store.

The experience of downloading less-popular applications can be sketchy, but you'd be very unlikely to find these in a curated app store, so the experience doesn't change.

And no, it's no safer than downloading it yourself. A big popular app store makes you a big popular target.

http://thehackernews.com/2017/04/android-malware-playstore.html

http://www.darkreading.com/applicat...-incident-trouble-in-paradise-/a/d-id/1324016

In the end of the day, zero-day exploits have the same level of effectiveness no matter where they come from. You can be sure that if people start using the Windows Store, it will get another big target.
Click to expand...

You took the one personal preference of mine where I mentioned I'd rather download Store apps (for my own piece of mind) and you read that as 'fear-mongering'?

My post was actually positive in a sense that I concluded both Store and traditional app avenues provide more choices for everyone. I didn't advocate one over the other. I'd like to think that Store apps and traditional apps can co-exist.

A lot of the opinions in this thread seem to think that Store apps and traditional installers are mutually exclusive. They are not.
 
Snowdog said:
I agree. But unfortunately, at best, all I think we can achieve is a delaying action.

Ultimately Microsoft will achieve it's wish, of building it's walled garden, and putting most of it's users in it.

They have shown they will throw everything into this fight and keep fighting the same battle again and again till it works.

Windows RT, fails, so we get another crack at it with Windows S. Most people are running Windows 7, so we get free upgrade offers, that isn't enough so we get Nagware installed on our systems...

Windows 7 support will end, and new Windows PC will be forced to have versions that suppor the walled garden.

Imagine if All PCs come with Windows S, and user have to pay $50 to unlock full access. How many will? Maybe a lot today. How many 5 years from now?

Ultimately we will lose. :(
Click to expand...
That's the day I check out of Windows all together.
 
Sonicks said:
You took the one personal preference of mine where I mentioned I'd rather download Store apps (for my own piece of mind) and you read that as 'fear-mongering'?

My post was actually positive in a sense that I concluded both Store and traditional app avenues provide more choices for everyone. I didn't advocate one over the other. I'd like to think that Store apps and traditional apps can co-exist.

A lot of the opinions in this thread seem to think that Store apps and traditional installers are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Click to expand...

Youll see me complain about this a lot. So many people think in binary outcomes, only two possible paths with any new device or feature, or change of any sort. Not sure when that limited level of thinking started becoming so widespread.
 
Sonicks said:
You took the one personal preference of mine where I mentioned I'd rather download Store apps (for my own piece of mind) and you read that as 'fear-mongering'?

My post was actually positive in a sense that I concluded both Store and traditional app avenues provide more choices for everyone. I didn't advocate one over the other. I'd like to think that Store apps and traditional apps can co-exist.

A lot of the opinions in this thread seem to think that Store apps and traditional installers are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Click to expand...

I just worry about a future where this is your only choice, without a jail break.

Microsoft is showing they have the balls to create this SKU. Who says they won't follow-through with full-lock-down, once the store gains traction?

And no jailbreak is not a good solution to our problems, it opens up even more vulnerabilities than the current side-load option.
 
Gasaraki_ said:
God no. This guy has been drinking too much Apple and Android koolaid.
Click to expand...
Reading between the lines and the author's article history, it's clear he's just soft-trolling and being contrarian for the clicks and controversy. But the fact it is controversial is something very real, and it's not good for Microsoft.

Windows 10 (S)tore locked edition is DOA. Nobody wants it, including schools.
 
Personally, I see possibilities here, both good and bad.

First off, I want to say that I am sick of Windows 10. Windows 10 has been a horrific experience as Microsoft attempts to force me to use my computer the way that they want, all in the name of protecting me. Windows 10 S is another step toward that goal of controlling the way their customer uses their computer. I do not want to be told how to use my computer, and I do not think I am alone. There are a lot of enthusiasts like me who hate Windows 10. The only thing that holds me to Windows 10 is gaming which, frankly, is a chore on Linux for AAA games.

So, I see several possibilities here, several of which could apply:
  1. Microsoft is trying to unify their platform. Windows 10 mobile and Windows 10 desktop are similar in a lot of ways. Xbox games are a part of the Windows Store. If they can unify the OSes, that reduces costs considerably and widens the available audience for Xbox games.
  2. Microsoft is trying to modernize. Every other OS, including mobile and Linux, has a store. Whether it is a prominent part of the OS or simple repositories, all of them have approved code bases delivered via their store.
  3. As others have suggested, Microsoft sees a revenue stream they are missing out on. This is not much of a stretch when you hear about how much money Apple makes off of their store.
  4. Call me cynical, as this one is unlikely, but Microsoft is looking to please all of their customers. They have long taken a beating from hobbyists and professionals for oversimplifying the OS while simultaneously taking a beating from casual users for everything being too hard to use. If they can put the casuals into Windows 10 S, that leaves the door open for them to make Windows 10 Pro a truly "Professional" OS with all the features hobbyists and professionals want.
  5. It is a way to combat piracy. The Windows Store being the only way to get software, it would be trivial to make certain only valid activated OSes can access the store. Likewise, their partners who deal with piracy would gain protections as well as a result.
  6. Microsoft is looking to improve their reputation and compete with Apple for their market share. There is a subset of the market that love Apple. This is a section of the market that they cannot get back with Windows as it is right now. If they address some of the complaints by the Apple faithful, they may be able to regain that market share.
Those are only a few, but I think Windows 10 as an OS right from the beginning has been heading down this path for a while. Windows 10 S is just another step down that path.
 
Windows 10 S has it's place. Just not on my desktop or laptop. It's a fine tablet OS, closed, very low maintenance with apps, etc..

I just don't want it for anything I do... It's the same reason I don't like iOS on anything other than a tablet. Too limited. Great for tablet. It just "works". Everything else? Nah.
 
DPI said:
Reading between the lines and the author's article history, it's clear he's just soft-trolling and being contrarian for the clicks and controversy. But the fact it is controversial is something very real, and it's not good for Microsoft.

Windows 10 (S)tore locked edition is DOA. Nobody wants it, including schools.
Click to expand...

I love the part where because Google Chromebooks are used more, that means they must trust Google. (Exactly what the article said.) It did not say trust more or less than any other. Get real, the trust is not there, just that the cost is and the fact that someone else is doing the administration for them, just like in the real world.
 
Shotglass01 said:
No, I don't think he's insane, I do not want S to succeed.
Click to expand...

That dude at Ars will never say or see anything wrong about Microsoft,

If you think that the shills we have here are bad, that one is worse.

Hell, even the forums members there, which are very bias towards they favorite companies (Google, Apple or MS), call that guy a shill, so don't be surprised by articles like this.

Shotglass01 said:
MS creams at the thought of UWP only delivery.
Click to expand...

Indeed, someone is having daily wet dreams of being able to take a 30% cut of every software bought for windows, assuming the current user base.

Thats why the main point of the last 3 OS's (8, 8.1 and W10) is the damn store.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top