Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

wastingtimewithforums wastingtime​withforums
  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    , AndyC wrote

    And, like it or not, there are many benefits to end users from the curated and sandboxed Store development model that they'd lose from allowing unconstrained side loading. You only have to look at what a malware-fest Android has become to see that. It's entirely the thing most users would happily pay to get away from.

    Why reading and dealing with previous posts and working with arguments when you can be Microsoft's PR grammaphone instead?

    Speaking of not reading:

    And, FYI, the $100 is an alternative to volume licensing. And only necessary in any case if you aren't using a domain. http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/springboard/archive/2014/04/03/windows-8-1-sideloading-enhancements.aspx

    FYI:

    Also starting May 1, 2014, other customers who want to enable sideloading will be able to purchase an Enterprise Sideloading key for $100 through the Open License program. An unlimited number of devices can be enabled for sideloading using this key.

    Open License is volume licensing:

    http://www.softmart.com/solutions/microsoft-solutions-center/volume-licensing-open-license.asp

    Microsoft Open License is a volume licensing program for small- to mid-sized companies with fewer than 250 desktop computers.

    http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/licensing-options/open-license.aspx?navV3Index=1#tab=2

    Minimum Number of Desktop PCs: 5+

  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    , AndyC wrote

    And the success of iOS, not to mention curated repositories on Linux distros, has proved over and over again that customers prefer getting all their software and updates from a single place. Nit to mention the amount of reach you can gain from being in a central store will usually give you far more sales than any profit sharing will affect.

    And if you really don't like that, stick to writing desktop applications.

    Sheesh, some of you guys really have no idea what a huge portion of the Windows user base consists of.

    To quote myself:

    ----

    There are bazillion custom software existing in the wild, almost every office has some custom scripts or software that are vital for the day to day business, and that's just one segment, let's add labs, shops, smallish one-man ventures and so on and you have the biggest software zoo in the world. To some of these, 100$ is indeed a big deal. Also, it's not just 100$: You need to have volume licensing, too! And apparently the PC needs to be in a domain. Both are certainly not a given, folks!

    ----

    Think of all the doctors, lawyers, small architect bureaus, tax consultants .. the list is endless. Many of them have just two PCs in their offices (one of the secretary, one for themselves), they don't need volume licensing, and often not even a Windows server (so they can't even use the 100$ offer!) But they often run custom software, some of which is even tailor made.

    The notion to depend on a app-store for these mission critical pieces of software is just nuts, especially given the fact that Microsoft's track record running software depositories is nothing to write home about:

    http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-on-other-devices/windows/pc-marketplace-closing
    http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Dick-move

    People aren't that stupid, the very possible prospect not be able to open a custom file format because the app is pulled from the store for various reasons (vendor defunct) or because Microsoft ceased to support the app-store of your Windows version isn't exactly endearing.

    Coming up with iOS and Linux distros is absurd. iOS is not used in the areas Windows is used, and non-Android Linux is hovering around 1% for decades. Maybe Windows can join it later, if Microsoft continues to completely forget what Windows is actually used for in the real world.

  • Dat Start Menu (NOT COMING IN 8.1 Update BUT SOME TIME LATER edition)

    , bondsbw wrote

    And I said that as the mobile strategy began to pick up steam, Microsoft would start to rebalance its focus on enterprise users and non-mobile situations (while maintaining and not completely reversing its mobile strategy).

    So that that was like the plan all along? Let's see what forcing metro on the desktop and removing the start menu brought to the table:

    -The growth of WP during the W8 years was pretty stagnant, so there were no synergies (maybe even the opposite: "W8 sucks, I am not going to buy a Windows phone!")

    -Windows 8's stake in the tablet market compared to iOS and Android is miniscule.

    -Yet: Massive negavitity towards Windows 8 (and often Microsoft as a whole) in the traditional Windows segments.

    I am sure not being a dick towards the loyal Windows customers would have at least changed point 3. Maybe even points 1 and 2 would be better without the negative aura Microsoft's boneheaded decisions casted on everything Windows 8 related as a whole.

  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    , bondsbw wrote

    @wastingtimewithforums:  My point was that such an attitude reinforces the need for antivirus protection, which is associated with unresponsive systems and nagware.  iOS is refreshing because it doesn't need this.  Android would arguably need antivirus if it were used in the same enterprise/PC setting as Windows is.

    And with such restrictions, iOS can never replace Windows.

    iOS' marketshare is crashing down fast, and not far into the future, the Android/iOS ratio will be the same as the Windows/Mac OS ratio. I am not saying the the lock-down is the main reason for this development, but it's surely one of the reasons. Enthusiasts (many of who were once on Windows and Windows Mobile) are flocking to Android, and these people are great multiplicators.

    I am pretty sure that the market as a whole would rather prefer to have Android with AV than the oh so pure iOS. iOS, with its strict regime, has no chance in hell that it can replace the Windows workhorse (Apple knows that and has MacOS for serious stuff anyway), Android on the other hand has that possibility if Microsoft keeps the Apple-envy. Microsoft can't be for real: They still continue to talk W32/.NET down, WinRT on the other hand is restricted to teeth functionality-wise and "freedom"-wise, yet MS expects devs should be happy? Hello? It can be seen from Mars that Microsoft's API offerings right now for the usual main Windows-duties just suck.

    "Android would arguably need antivirus if it were used in the same enterprise/PC setting as Windows is"

    The job of AV in enterprise is usually not to guard the users against installing programs - that's locked down by policies anyway.

    It's surreal - with Android, we have a repeat of the classical Windows story on the mobile front (multiple vendors, few restrictions as possible, not expensive), and as Windows back in the days, it is grabbing marketshare left and right. What's Microsoft's answer? The niche model of Apple, right up to copying pricing (Surface) and attitude,  just without the loyal well-funded hipsters but with even more lockdowns than the original and a massive FU to the core user base. Oh yeah!

    They are now finally waking up and making adjustments (start menu, price reduction for OEMs and stuff), but that they thought their "original plan" would fly was nuts. A non-escapable app-store on a general purpose OS is nuts too, if they want WinRT to be massively adopted in W32/.NET areas and not having it around as gadgets+.

  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    , kettch wrote

    Have you seen what these sites are doing to people these days? They are there under the guise of providing a service to both users and developers, however, they are full of misleading ads and in the last couple of years have started re-wrapping installers with their own custom malware without developer consent. That's just the reputable ones like CNet, imagine what the rest of them are doing.

    "That's just the reputable ones like CNet, imagine what the rest of them are doing"

    Is it worse than Microsoft's various antics? Especially in the past few years Microsoft has shown that is not above deception - my favourite example was how the Xbone officials kept proclaiming that it is absolutely impossible to change the DRM and the Xbone design, only to announce literally just a few hours later that it is changed.

    That's not specific to MS, big corporations are always looking to increase profit, just don't trust them that they place your well-being above financials.

    At least with the download portals there is competition, yet you're advocating for a monopoly-store and locked sideloading on a general purpose PC OS, even for non-fart apps, from a vendor which has already shown how reliable it is at providing services like these in times of marketing-pressures.

  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    , bondsbw wrote

    *snip*

    Microsoft has been extremely burned by this attitude in the past.  Even though Windows is arguably the most secure OS to ever exist, people to this day claim the opposite because of mainstream Windows operating systems that, coincidentally, just expired today.

    There were no such warnings "in the past". These came only with XP SP2 and Vista.

    Prior to that, everyone was admin and you could run any exe from the internet without any kind of hindrance.

    And ActiveX applets in IE were able to shove you the "install me!" screens due javascript-magic in a loop, until you either installed them or CTRL-DEL-ALTed IE.

    And let's not forget Blaster and friends, who were able to wreak havok completely without installing something, because the ports were not shielded by default.

    And Outlook/Express running macros without warning, together with hiding the file extension.

    Sure, there was also extra effort against Windows because it was and is the most prevalent OS on the PC, but let's not pretend that the pre-SP2/Vista reputation happened only because the OS wasn't a total police state!

    , bondsbw wrote

    Right now it's tough (maybe impossible?) for a virus to screw with other WinRT apps without the user's knowledge and consent.  This is a good image, "Metro = Secure".

    Eh, "Metro = annoying tiles" and "Windows 8 sucks" is the image of the whole endeavor so far.

  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    , spivonious wrote

    @wastingtimewithforums: The question becomes, how do you keep the sandboxing and some level of app vetting while letting any user sideload metro apps? Do you trust the user to say "Yes, I'm really sure this app is safe"? Do you only allow signed apps? Do you let anything in and let WinRT/Metro get just as bad as desktop apps?

    "Applications outside the Microsoft store can potentially harm the computer. Microsoft is not responsible for any damages. Proceed?".

    There, done. It's not rocket science!

    And yes, ultimately I trust that most users are able to read the above message. Say what you want about UAC, but malware prevalence is less severe now than it was ten years ago.

    The scenario of a few infected devices more is VASTLY more preferable than the scenario of a total lockdown, a monopolized app-store and the complete dependence on Microsoft's goodwill for your own applications.

  • You must pay $100 to deploy your own software in Windows

    As someone with a good record of predicting "Microsoft clusterfucks": Microsoft is out of their mind if they think they can keep Windows as the glue in the professional world and expecting people will keep up with restricted sideloading (WinRT itself has too many restrictions to be a hit in the traditional Windows areas anyway, but that's another topic).

    There are bazillion custom software existing in the wild, almost every office has some custom scripts or software that are vital for the day to day business, and that's just one segment, let's add labs, shops, smallish one-man ventures and so on and you have the biggest software zoo in the world. To some of these, 100$ is indeed a big deal. Also, it's not just 100$: You need to have volume licensing, too! And apparently the PC needs to be in a domain. Both are certainly not a given, folks!

    I think Microsoft is completely unaware of their customer base, that explains W8 and their "clould fits 100%"-approaches.

    Microsoft is nuts to expect restricting sideloading will be smooth sailing given these circumstances. People will stay on Win32/.NET for ages rather than invest into WinRT. And can Microsoft afford to say "FU" to them, given the rise of competitors?

    The "but Apple!"-faction should look how the iOS marketshare is doing, and that it is not let's- copycat-Apple's-pricing-and-restrictions WP and W8 who are taking away marketshare.

  • Dat Start Menu (NOT COMING IN 8.1 Update BUT SOME TIME LATER edition)

    , AndyC wrote

    *snip*

    Just because a change makes it into the product, it doesn't make it "right". Otherwise everyone else was presumably "right" beforehand.

    Oh really? I cannot remember anyone here (or elsewhere) complaining about the oh so terrible the start menu before the first Windows 8 betas appeared. How were the W8 fanboys right about the changes in W8 when they never actually complained about the pre-W8 interface in the first place?

    Suddenly the start menu (and even the whole desktop sometimes) was for the sycophants like the worst thing ever all the while ignoring the far more massive issues in the metro menu and the other W8 crazies.

    You guys have actually NEVER won any argument. In all the of threads here (and similar threads by other people on other forums), you were never able to score. It all came down to "deal with it", "tablets are popular, so deal with it", "cheese", I have no problems with it and I am more productive than ever" - when asked about specifics about the latter, the answer was usually silence.

    Here's the wall of shame:

    http://channel9.msdn...still-in-denial

    http://channel9.msdn...m-the-app-store

    http://channel9.msdn...house/Dick-move

    https://channel9.msd...f-phishing-mail

    http://channel9.msdn...Windows-8-nadir

    http://channel9.msdn...No-Good-Options

    http://channel9.msdn...Windows-Desktop

    http://channel9.msdn...ffeehouse/Irony

    http://channel9.msdn...Windows-8-today

    http://channel9.msdn...d-scare-tactics

    http://channel9.msdn...ouse/Telemetry-

    http://channel9.msdn...nch-in-February

    http://channel9.msdn...ft-are-to-blame

    http://channel9.msdn...desktop-as-SaaS

    http://channel9.msdn...-the-DVD-codecs

    http://channel9.msdn...-out-of-the-bag

    http://channel9.msdn...gement-Shove-it

    http://channel9.msdn...ware-the-better

    http://channel9.msdn...life-XP-problem

    http://channel9.msdn...teams-were-sane

    http://channel9.msdn...s-making-rounds

    http://channel9.msdn...endly-Microsoft

    http://channel9.msdn...e-last-Any-bets

    I didn't want to start a huge fanfare about the return of sanity, but I am seriously pissed off right now. Not all opinions are equal - Windows 8 was a huge turd sandwich and you were never able to whitewash it. Objectively looking at it in the first beta stages (without having a sense of loyalty to some corporation), it was abundantly clear: That thing would fail, and rightly so.

  • Dat Start Menu (NOT COMING IN 8.1 Update BUT SOME TIME LATER edition)

    Glad to see common sense is finally crawling back to Microsoft again.

    And so much for "the start menu is a done deal. Deal with it" - if something fails in the market (and come on, the full screen metro menu IS WORSE than the start menu on a non-tablet) then OF COURSE a feature can come back. Hasty decisions from some MS VPs are neither the word of God nor the laws of physics.

    Good to see that Microsoft itself still has some non-dogmatic people and not just fanboys.