Taking 30% profits from devs is sucky of course, but as far as I know, freeware is hosted for free, and the appstore could FINALLY solve the age-old problem of maintaining gazillion of updaters for Flash, Adobe Reader and Java. You know, all the stuff that is installed on just about EVERY damn PC and is usually freeware.

I could totally see Oracle and Adobe listing their readers and runtimes in the appstore, so that at least Windows 8 users could finally use an integrated updater mechanism. Alas, as usual, Win 8 disappoints:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/11/14/minimizing-restarts-after-automatic-updating-in-windows-update.aspx

Lastly but not the least, I want to address the feedback from users who would like WU to update their 3rd-party applications. People clearly find the experience with multiple updaters on the system less than optimal (and we agree!) ....  However, as we discussed at the //build/ conference, the new Windows Store will provide a one-stop shop for (free and paid-for) Metro style apps, with an integrated update service to help ensure apps are maintained in a consistent manner

Huh, what about desktop apps? Oh, right:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/239994/windows_8_app_store_what_we_know_so_far.html

The Windows Store is supposed to be an easy way for you to purchase touch-centric apps built with the new Windows 8 Metro-style interface in mind. But Microsoft said you will also see traditional desktop apps listed in the Windows Store.

During the demo, the company showed the Windows Store listing for popular finance program Quicken, including a link to the Quicken website to purchase the product. Microsoft said it doesn't want to require established programs to rewrite their licensing models and payment systems just to fit into Microsoft's new Windows store--a comment clearly aimed at Apple's Mac App Store. Instead, it will provide what is basically a free listings service for non-Metro apps.

"We love the ecosystem that's around Windows applications," said Steven Sinofsky, Microsoft's president of Windows and Windows Live. "And we want to make sure that it [the old Windows ecosystem] blossoms in this world as well."

Yeah, right! Seriously, fix your newspeak already, it just sucks.So basically the "appstore" for Windows 8 is just a glorified Windows Marketplace or download.com, yay, that's what the world is waiting for! Sheesh, allowing desktop apps into the appstore would fix an age old problem, but I guess that would make too much sense. And the excuse sucks - so what if some developers won't use AppX or whatever? Those who don't want to use it, just keep them as a mere links, and those who will write an installer that can be used with the appstore will get the full appstore treatment. Problem solved. The 30% tax for metros is bad enough, but this cripples it completely.

Verdict: Together with Metro, the Fartstore can be canned just as well.

And can the fanboys please tell me Metro how in its current form will be suitable for anything remotely business- and professional related? I just can't imagine something like Quicken or Cubase in Metro, unless either Quicken/Cubase or Metro get completely bastardized from what they are now. Given that people make money with those programs and Metro is a shiny, headache inducing toy (for now at least) I can already see who gets the shaft at the end. My guess: Metro in Windows 12 will be so bloated and extended that you won't notice the difference in looks to a classical Win32/Winforms/WPF app. Which kinda negates the whole point, doesn't it?

Given all this, Windows 8 is only interesting for tablets and/or if you just need to run your favourite farts on the desktop too. Everyone else should wait until Metro gets raped enough until apps written for it can look like Win32 and the porting of desktop apps to Metro will begin.

MS probably realizes it too and and just goes with it to capture as much tablet marketshare as possible with *shiny* in the meantime.

And now comes again the worst part of Windows 8 facing these circumstances: Metro is useless for productivity workers, the appstore is completely useless just as well for them, and despite this, the mutant OS forces Metro on everyone. Just separate these two worlds completely for now and everyone would be happy.

Looks like Windows 7 will have a looong shelf-life.

Then you have NO CLUE about whether or not Metro is "useless for productivity workers". Seriously, tone down the hyperbolic rhetoric.

AFAIK, "productivity workers" are used to applications that have textboxes, buttons, comboboxes, listviews, radiobuttons, checkboxes, grids, lists, richtextblocks, etc. Guess what. Metro-style apps can have all of those controls and more. The only difference is that application windows have no chrome.

I personally don't like full-screened applications. I don't even like the tabbed UI paradigm. However, that doesn't mean that most other people are like me. 

Herbie

Does this mean

1. Select a picture and copy it.
2. Swipe 4, 7, 10 or however many times horizontally until full screen PowerPoint is on my desktop.
3. Paste my picture.

Is going to become the norm for working with multiple apps? 

(That split screen thing they showed on YouTube where you can have -- oh boy -- TWO apps on the screen at once doesn't really help here).

41 minutes ago, Craig_​Matthews wrote

2. Swipe 4, 7, 10 or however many times horizontally until full screen PowerPoint is on my desktop.

Remember there's swipe gestures....don't have to swipe 14 times to go over there --->. Just need to make some gestures to bring up thumbs of the apps quickly and click the app you want. The more you do it the faster you'll get.

About the swipe from the left thing ... if you're using a mouse, you don't actually have to swipe/drag at all to cycle through the top-level windows, you can just throw the pointer to the left side of the screen then click, click, click.

Also, for sharing data between Metro style apps I think the Share/Picker contracts are ultimately intended as the preferred way.

I don't think so. It's my understanding that your app has to be WinRT/Metro app to be installed & updated via the app store. At best Microsoft will allow you to promote your non-WinRT/Metro app by providing you a means to list your app in the store but the listing will be nothing more than a re-direct to your web site where they can purchase the app.

I think it's pretty clear that it's go WinRT/Metro or go home. Despite Microsoft's allusions to the desktop being a viable option for developing apps they are killing it with a thousand little cuts with moves like this. I just wish they'd come out and say it: their investment in desktop technologies is over. The desktop is your backwards compatibility box and that's about it.

I love this double-speak too:

Lastly but not the least, I want to address the feedback from users who would like WU to update their 3rd-party applications. People clearly find the experience with multiple updaters on the system less than optimal (and we agree!) ....  However, as we discussed at the //build/ conference, the new Windows Store will provide a one-stop shop for (free and paid-for) Metro style apps, with an integrated update service to help ensure apps are maintained in a consistent manner

Summary: We know having multiple 3rd party app installers suck. Instead of addressing the problem we'll leverage our app store to try and get developers to write Metro apps in order to take advantage of the apps store's update services.

4 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

I love this double-speak too:.

That's some heavy duty creative editing you've done there, essentially snipping out the entire paragraph that ends with "The wide variety of delivery mechanisms, installation tools, and overall approaches to updates across the full breadth of applications makes it impossible to push all updates through this mechanism.  As frustrating as this might be, it is also an important part of the ecosystem that we cannot just revisit for the installed base of software." Just a tad skewing the point on your part, don't you think?

15 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

That's some heavy duty creative editing you've done there, essentially snipping out the entire paragraph that ends with "The wide variety of delivery mechanisms, installation tools, and overall approaches to updates across the full breadth of applications makes it impossible to push all updates through this mechanism.  As frustrating as this might be, it is also an important part of the ecosystem that we cannot just revisit for the installed base of software." Just a tad skewing the point on your part, don't you think?

I disagree. They could provide an AppX implementation for "legacy" apps that streamlined installation (like ClickOnce) and let devs convert to it but they chose not to provide that option. IMO they purposely chose this path in order to "encourage" the development of WinRT/Metro apps.

A thousand little cuts...

in some respects i understand this but i also see the impact this impresssion can have.

i see that more than a few developers and tech folks are starting to walk away from the "Microsoft" camp and if this trend keeps up MS may find that they do not matter.

1 hour ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

That's some heavy duty creative editing you've done there, essentially snipping out the entire paragraph that ends with "The wide variety of delivery mechanisms, installation tools, and overall approaches to updates across the full breadth of applications makes it impossible to push all updates through this mechanism.  As frustrating as this might be, it is also an important part of the ecosystem that we cannot just revisit for the installed base of software."

And you haven't read an entire paragraph in my opening post:

And the excuse sucks - so what if some developers won't use AppX or whatever? Those who don't want to use it, just keep them as a mere links, and those who will write an installer that can be used with the appstore will get the full appstore treatment. Problem solved

Don't tell me it would be rocket science to allow opening up the appstore for "traditonal" types of programs. Steam proves it can be done just fine even on Windows, and the games there are nothing more than just good old Win32 applications.

I understand there's another reason: The sandboxing that WinRT provides. But it's not as if there isn't a way to provide non-WinRT applications and still be safe. This problem could be solved by a verification system: Vendors who want to publish desktop apps need to provide their full name, adress, website URL and their credit card number, MS charges 0.1 cent from the card and the vendor then needs to enter the code that was is listed in the bill. Lots of pay systems have similiar verifications. Again, no rocket science for a multi-billion dollar company.

At the very least, why not allowing companies that can be 100% trusted, like Oracle, Adobe etc. and this way solving the third party update troubles for 99% of all users?

25 minutes ago, Blue Ink wrote

Can you imagine the lawsuit fest that would arise about who gets to be "100% trusted" and who doesn't?

This fanboyism cracks me up. If Apple and Valve managed to do it for "desktop applications":

http://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html
http://steampowered.com/steamworks/FAQ.php

Then MS could surely do it too if they wanted. Stop searching for dumb excuses.

So, anyway, is there any good reason to upgrade to Win 8 on the desktop now? I don't see any. Oh, wait, yes, faster boot and some lowered system specs.. but you get the forced 1.0 Metro annoyingness in return... raw deal.

The wide variety of delivery mechanisms, installation tools, and overall approaches to updates across the full breadth of applications makes it impossible to push all updates through this mechanism.  As frustrating as this might be, it is also an important part of the ecosystem that we cannot just revisit for the installed base of software.

How about a solution like this:

Expose an API in Windows that any application developer can use that:

• Allows an application developer to have their application listed in a common Add/Remove/Update list (hey, we already have 2/3 of that!). Note that the application should not need to actually have an installer. Some things like plugins often don't have installers.
• Allows the application to push its current version to the list so that it can be displayed.
• At installation, lets Windows knows which URL to use to check for the latest version.
• When the user goes into this list, Windows checks all listed applications for their latest versions from the supplied URLs.
• Allow easy filtering in the list so that for instance only applications for which there are updates available are listed.
• Allows the user to at least download the latest version via a button in the list, or (better) allows the user to click on a button that will automatically download and run the latest installer to update the application.
• Show a weekly message (or on a user-selectable schedule) of which applications are out of date.
• Is available from all frameworks, Win32, WinRT, .Net, etc.

The above should be simple for MS to implement, and they would not be responsible for having to track any 3rd party applications themselves. However it would be in the application developer's best interest to make use of this simple API so that their users can easily know when updates are available.

Not to mention that standardising the installation experience was tried years ago with MSI and even now the vast majority of applications use all manor of different installer engines still. What would be different about this one that somehow got everyone to agree?

39 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

@BitFlipper: Just think of the fun malware writers could have with that implementation.

Not to mention that standardising the installation experience was tried years ago with MSI and even now the vast majority of applications use all manor of different installer engines still. What would be different about this one that somehow got everyone to agree?

Well, with my proposed scenario the applications can still use whatever installer they want (they can call into the API to register themselves every time they run - no problem if the application registers the same values multiple times). So the requirement to use MSI is not there. In fact the application/plugin doesn't even need an installer at all in this case.

As for your malware comment, when the applications calls the API to register themselves, and Windows detects that the values passed in doesn't yet exist or is different from the previously registered values, Windows can pop a dialog saying that application XYZ wants to add/update the Add/Remove/Update list. The user would know if they didn't specifically just installed XYZ or didn't ask to have the application update itself. This is no different from how malware would trigger a similar dialog if they tried to make system changes today.

This is not rocket science. Such an API would be extremely simple. Probably two calls: RegisterApplication (Application name, URL to query latest version, current version number, installed folder, [URL for the application website that the user can click on to get latest info]). In addition there would also be: UnregisterApplication (Application name).

An example where this would be extremely useful is for instance with VST plugins. These are DSP plugins for audio applications (DAWs). VST plugins typically only consist of a single DLL that the user downloads and manually places in a folder (or subfolder) that the host audio application is configured to scan. Very few VST plugins have installers. So with my proposed solution, making one call into RegisterApplication from each DLL at startup would create a centralized list where I can easily see which plugins are out of date. I currently have more than 300 such VST plugins (and that is a small fraction of all available plugins), and with a lot of those it is a pain to track down their websites from time to time to figure out which ones are out of date.

Of course it doesn't guarantee that the applications will use it, but if such a simple mechanism is in place, application developers might see the benefit themselves and make the simple change to support it.

15 hours ago, AndyC wrote

@magicalclick: And who says you won't be able to? It's perfectly possible to write a full C++/DirectX game within the WinRT framework and the full screen behaviour is perfectly suited to games.

If they are as awesome as CoD, Battlefield, and Crysis, I am all good.

38 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

*snip*

If they are as awesome as CoD, Battlefield, and Crysis, I am all good.

Why wouldn't they be?

3 hours ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

Why wouldn't they be?

Beats me. Like I said, I hope the statements are just speculations.

4 hours ago, PaoloM wrote

*snip*

Why wouldn't they be?

Uhm, easy:

If only WinRT applications get the appstore treatment that means that devs can only target Windows 8 and leave XP, Vista, and 7 in the dust (or write a "normal" and a special Win 8 version just to be listed in appstore - fun) Why should they do that? Steam is the monopoly in games distribution.

More work to cover a niche. Just look how long it took until DX 10/11 exclusive titles arrived and how few they are still.

I won't deny that there could be very well lots of WinRT+DX11 powered games in the appstore.. but it's sure this won't happen in Windows 8's time. Maybe with Win 9 or 10. Just around the time when Metro will get bastardized.

13 hours ago, wastingtimewithforums wrote

*snip*

Uhm, easy:

If only WinRT applications get the appstore treatment that means that devs can only target Windows 8 and leave XP, Vista, and 7 in the dust (or write a "normal" and a special Win 8 version just to be listed in appstore - fun) Why should they do that? Steam is the monopoly in games distribution.

More work to cover a niche. Just look how long it took until DX 10/11 exclusive titles arrived and how few they are still.

I won't deny that there could be very well lots of WinRT+DX11 powered games in the appstore.. but it's sure this won't happen in Windows 8's time. Maybe with Win 9 or 10. Just around the time when Metro will get bastardized.

Point. Set. Match. Well said.

6 hours ago, AndyC wrote

@BitFlipper: If Vista taught anyone anything it's that asking the user every time you need to make a security decision is a recipe for disaster, baking an API into Windows that fundamentally requires annoying UI just isn't a good idea.

Bitflipper I like your idea. The price of an extra prompt for getting a single place for people to get and maintain their apps is cheap. I wouldn't put much stock in what Andy is saying; IMO, back in the Vista days he'd be the one saying what a great thing UAC was.

7 hours ago, AndyC wrote

@BitFlipper: If Vista taught anyone anything it's that asking the user every time you need to make a security decision is a recipe for disaster, baking an API into Windows that fundamentally requires annoying UI just isn't a good idea.

You will only get the popup right after you explicitly request to have the application update itself, so I fail to see what the big deal is. You won't see it while running the applications normally.

I think most people will just click install anyway. So, it is not about asking user whether to make the registry change or not. Instead, the registry should be easily recoverable. For example, the value is never ever modified unless it is the value's owner. If it is not the value owner, then, it is only appended. If you delete the malware, it simply just remove the appended value and return back to normal. If you like, you can also remove all appended values to clean out everything.

5 minutes ago, magicalclick wrote

@BitFlipper:

I think most people will just click install anyway. So, it is not about asking user whether to make the registry change or not. Instead, the registry should be easily recoverable. For example, the value is never ever modified unless it is the value's owner. If it is not the value owner, then, it is only appended. If you delete the malware, it simply just remove the appended value and return back to normal. If you like, you can also remove all appended values to clean out everything.

I see what you are saying and I agree that users would mostly click install anyway. The thing is though how does the OS know that a newly downloaded piece of software is truly the "owner" of a previous entry? For instance, let's say the user is tricked into downloading and running some malware. This malware calls the register API and claims it is some popular application. Since the OS can't tell the difference between a malicious installer and the true installer (both would be something the OS never saw before), this could be problematic. If the malware then changes the application settings with a new download URL, there is a problem.

However I'd argue that when the user was tricked into running the malware it was game over anyway so in the big picture I think this whole line of reasoning is moot.

I think one would need to demonstrate how this mechanism would make the system any more vulnerable to malware than what it already is (or isn't).

15 hours ago, AndyC wrote

@BitFlipper: If Vista taught anyone anything it's that asking the user every time you need to make a security decision is a recipe for disaster, baking an API into Windows that fundamentally requires annoying UI just isn't a good idea.

Incorrect. What Vista taught Microsoft, and what the users already knew, was that changing the time zone, defragmenting the hard disk, and intentionally clicking start -> control panel, and then double clicking on a control panel applet are not security breaches.

The prompts aren't a recipe for disaster. Throwing them up in someone's face for no reason is.

6 hours ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

I see what you are saying and I agree that users would mostly click install anyway. The thing is though how does the OS know that a newly downloaded piece of software is truly the "owner" of a previous entry?

They just need the application digitally signed and verified online (including revoking the compromised signature). The installer with out-dated signature will append the value instead of modifying the value.

Anyway, that would be a big topic for sure. Those things are certainly not easy.

User: Go into Firefox and turn off AutoUpdate
Windows: It looks like you're trying to turn off updates for Firefox, Are you sure you want to do that?
User: Stupid Windows!

(doubly so if this a system-wide application setting, as it then gets followed up by a UAC prompt!)

It doesn't matter if, as IT professionals, we know that Windows has to do this kind of thing to prevent malicious changes, end users think it's stupid.

And yes, for the record, I do think UAC was and is a good idea and I keep mine on the highest setting. The difference is that there is a very clear line the delineates when I, as someone experienced, should say No to a UAC prompt. By contrast I'd never know if one of these updates prompts came up if it were genuine or not - did it just ask me about Firefox updates because they've now moved over to using the central update system or is it just some pesky malware pretending?

And that's to say nothing of the applications that would inevitably end up abusing a system like this to get Windows to nag you into buying the latest version.

10 hours ago, magicalclick wrote

*snip*

They just need the application digitally signed and verified online (including revoking the compromised signature).

OMG! Microsoft are ripping off developers with the Verisign tax, etc....

15 hours ago, magicalclick wrote

*snip*

They just need the application digitally signed and verified online (including revoking the compromised signature). The installer with out-dated signature will append the value instead of modifying the value.

Anyway, that would be a big topic for sure. Those things are certainly not easy.

I think once you require certificates you might as well forget about something like this ever being successful. The whole point is to keep it simple so that developers don't balk at implementing the minimal amount of work needed to make it useful for both themselves and for end users.

On the OS side things could be made more complex, but this should be transparent to developers and users. For instance, once a new version is registered, MS might provide a service back at the mothership that automatically downloads a copy of that file from the supplied download URL and does a security scan on it. Only after it passes does it allow Windows to actually download/install that file.

Also the current model seems to create problems for people who want both Immersive and Desktop versions of their apps, where the two versions would switch between each other. You would have to tell the user to download two separate apps in two separate places, leading to a complicated install process. I think the "full screen mode" metaphor that Apple is using is basically a good idea, and all of these steps in the middle would break that type of metaphor.

1 hour ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

I think once you require certificates you might as well forget about something like this ever being successful. The whole point is to keep it simple so that developers don't balk at implementing the minimal amount of work needed to make it useful for both themselves and for end users.

You are aware, of course, that code signing is required for all apps in the Apple Appstore? Or are you claiming that the Apple Appstore isn't successful?

20 minutes ago, evildictaitor wrote

*snip*

You are aware, of course, that code signing is required for all apps in the Apple Appstore? Or are you claiming that the Apple Appstore isn't successful?

This has nothing to do with any App store. What I'm proposing is simply a way to allow "legacy" applications a simple way to add themselves into a global list that shows which applications have newer versions, and possibly allow an easy way to update those applications (irrespective of which installer they use, or no installer at all). That is all. This is something that can be added into Windows 8 but once again would only apply to non-Metro applications. If it makes sense then Metro apps could also be listed here, but see below.

As for any App store, of course each one should have its own update mechanism, and hopefully anyone implementing an App store going forward would have learnt from past mistakes and have as part of its app requirement an easy, reliable and consistent way to update existing applications.

2 hours ago, brian.shapiro wrote

Also the current model seems to create problems for people who want both Immersive and Desktop versions of their apps, where the two versions would switch between each other. You would have to tell the user to download two separate apps in two separate places, leading to a complicated install process.

I think that generally that's just a bad model to try and implement, either your app is designed for an immersive experience or it isn't. Creating some sort of bodged hybrid is really only going to cause more problems than it could ever hope to solve. IE sort of does it and that feels kind of kludgy at best, I really wouldn't want to find myself having to use an app that really required that sort of behaviour.

Even if we could do that there is still the problem about having different update cycles and install cycles for each version of the app. One of which will not be able to be updated through the windows store.