Will all applications for Win9 be able ONLY by Windows Store?

zom

Windows 8 is threading new way of software distribution (similar to Apple Store). If you are using some independent developers software (Irfan View, VLC, Virtual Dub, etc,) you can be surprised soon.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-06-gabe-newell-right-declare-windows-8-a-catastrophe

juan.kerr

No. Enterprise IT deparments would never accept this. Big difference between home users and corporate users.

Overheal

Too early to talk about this. I don't think there is even a whitepaper for Windows 9 yet. Nobody outside of Redmond knows for sure what Windows 9 will even feature. I can wager it will probably phase out 32-bit support and will support more things natively like USB 3.0 (windows 8 already did some wild back-end stuff with native display support changes) and would probably carry the backbone of DirectX 12.0 whenever that surfaces but beyond that who can really say.

I really don't think they would phase out open software support. Not after only 2 generations. Like Kerr said not only would this piss off home users but it would be endgame for enterprise, they would sooner jump ship and rebuild their own systems under Linux than put up with that. Any potential "store-only" environment would probably never be possible. At most, all current "desktop" software will soon phase into "apps" just like DOS-based programs became Windows-based programs.

Fysh

What Overheal said.

it's amusing to see FUD aimed at Windows for a change, though...

Capt'n Midnight

One of the differences between home user and commercial licenses is the right to down grade to a previous version of windows. Virtual PC using XP as a way to run older apps was a nice move.

A lot of criticism has directed at microsoft for security in the past and the biggest security hole has been backward compatibility.

Apple threw the baby out with the bathwater when it moved to Unix. But companies with huge investments in old systems can be fairly sure that an old app can be got to run on windows.

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

Any potential "store-only" environment would probably never be possible.

And why is that? Google does it and so does Amazon.

Microsoft has just taken the word personal out of the PC ("for your own good, we need to know what's going on on your Windows 8 device") and moved from developing operating systems to selling a retail platform.

I'd say, a "store-only" environment would only be the next logical step. Open source has always been a thorn in Microsoft's flesh and they'd love nothing more than cutting it out entirely.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

And why is that? Google does it and so does Amazon.

Kindles and Chromebooks are not PC replacements. People will own such things, and own a PC. There are some users that do with them by themselves, they are a minority.

Again for reasons I already stated, Microsoft will not go that route, there would be far too much backlash and outcry, refusal to upgrade, etc.

Microsoft has just taken the word personal out of the PC ("for your own good, we need to know what's going on on your Windows 8 device") and moved from developing operating systems to selling a retail platform.

Playing into your cynicism for a moment: it's Personal, not Private.

You can opt out of sending information to Microsoft related to bug reporting. You can also opt out of Defender and the reporting it does. You can even opt out of the Store, Microsoft will only know whats on your device because you've installed it from them. And when you run the store, it checks for program updates. Pretty basic. You also opt in to transmitting data anytime you go online. Again, you need to use Sensibility, Aristotle, and realize that there is a happy medium where in exchange for basic technical information you are delivered a service. Your cellular phone pings your location, for instance, because it needs to for technical reasons in order to function. If you don't like it, don't own a mobile.

You make it sound like they're rummaging through your quicken files to see how much you filed in taxes for the last 3 years. Insinuations of that nature are absurd.

I'd say, a "store-only" environment would only be the next logical step.

After multiple generations, maybe. Not in the next OS, and probably not in the one after it either.

Torqay

Overheal wrote: »

Microsoft will not go that route, there would be far too much backlash and outcry, refusal to upgrade, etc.

Since when does Microsoft care? They have the monopoly on the OEM market and no manufacturer would dare crossing Microsoft as they would find themselves locked out from the market in the morning. Any new computer is being sold with the latest Windows. And that they're giving Windows 8 away for next to nothing indicates that they want users tie to their new ecosystem ASAP. They're no charity, you know.

Overheal wrote: »

Playing into your cynicism for a moment: it's Personal, not Private.

So personal is no longer private?

Overheal wrote: »

You can opt out of sending information to Microsoft

Yeah right, and how many people do that?

And then, you do that and it makes you even more suspicious as you apparently have something to hide. Remember, it's only for your own good that Microsoft wants to know.

Not only is there very little known about the type of information Microsoft is collecting but also concerns have been raised regarding the rather insecure transmission.

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

Since when does Microsoft care? They have the monopoly on the OEM market and no manufacturer would dare crossing Microsoft as they would find themselves locked out from the market in the morning. Any new computer is being sold with the latest Windows. And that they're giving Windows 8 away for next to nothing indicates that they want users tie to their new ecosystem ASAP. They're no charity, you know.

If they had a monopoly (They don't) then there would already be an antitrust lawsuit out there. There are no such current lawsuits, any previous lawsuits have been resolved, the most recent being in Europe vs. Internet Explorer.

So personal is no longer private?

Like I said, it depends on what you wish to transmit in order to avail of the returns. you transmit your location for location-based content. You transmit which programs you have installed in order to check for updates to them.

Yeah right, and how many people do that?

I believe you did. Or wanted to.

And then, you do that and it makes you even more suspicious as you apparently have something to hide. Remember, it's only for your own good that Microsoft wants to know.

Now you really come of as not knowing what is being talked about. Microsoft is not the FBI or the TSA. Absolutely ridiculous.

Not only is there very little known about the type of information Microsoft is collecting but also concerns have been raised regarding the rather insecure transmission.

Im sure plenty is known, just not by you, and you're using it to make a fallible argument: The Appeal to Ignorance (Latin: Argumentem ad Ignoratium). Its not a very strong argument position, I would abandon it fast. If you want to say 'Microsoft is stealing/abusing the contents of your photos and documents', then you should be prepared to back it up with proof.

Fysh

Torqay, If you're going to accuse Microsoft of "rummaging through your stuff" and transmitting it to a home server of some sort in an insecure fashion, give us proof.

By definition it should be easy to prove - run a test machine (real or VM doesn't matter), put some test files on it and use error reporting etc and intercept the packets on the way out and post their contents.

If you cant do this (or point to someone else who's posted up the results along with a reproducible methodology) then what you're saying is factually incorrect.

Also : "personal" does not mean "private". You might assume this in certain contexts, but there's no absolute to the matter.

Torqay

Fysh wrote: »

Torqay, If you're going to accuse Microsoft of "rummaging through your stuff" and transmitting it to a home server of some sort in an insecure fashion, give us proof.

By definition it should be easy to prove - run a test machine (real or VM doesn't matter), put some test files on it and use error reporting etc and intercept the packets on the way out and post their contents.

If you cant do this (or point to someone else who's posted up the results along with a reproducible methodology) then what you're saying is factually incorrect.

Windows 8 Tells Microsoft About Everything You Install, Not Very Securely

Overheal wrote: »

If they had a monopoly (They don't) then there would already be an antitrust lawsuit out there. There are no such current lawsuits, any previous lawsuits have been resolved

They sure have a history, and - surprise, surprise - they're at it again:

Microsoft goes back to monopoly forced bundling

Fact of the matter, no major OEM can risk to offer their machines without a Microsoft operating system on a global scale. I'm not talking about small-time system builders here.

Remember, Dell were selling computers with Ubuntu pre-installed for a while, they were only allowed to do so under the condition that these machines were not sold cheaper than their Windows counterparts. The power of a monopoly...

Overheal wrote: »

Microsoft is not the FBI or the TSA. Absolutely ridiculous.

No, they are not but if any representative of such a three-letter agency flash their credentials, Microsoft will give them any information they demand. Don't forget, America is a nation at war and it won't take much to remind them of their "patriotic duties".

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

If they had a monopoly (They don't)

Point of information.
AFAIK In the US you can have a monopoly as long as you don't abuse it.


Did anyone bother to read the EULA ?

What does it say about sending anonymous data back ? /Game over.



Sending a hash back about what was installed is hardly a data leak compared to using something like gmail.

To put in to perspective the concerns about privacy and the men in black, if a court order is produced your ISP will be falling over themselves to hand over as much data as they can. ( in the US ratting out your customers is a lucrative sideline for the telcos because they can charge for it).

I think we are all agreed that you need some sort of antivirus / antimalware program and many of these will also "phone home" with information about what you have installed.

Windows is a terrible choice for anyone with real personal safety concerns in an oppressive country. I've been told it keeps a record of every USB drive it's seen so it's probably not even safe to use sneakernet.

Overheal

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Point of information.
AFAIK In the US you can have a monopoly as long as you don't abuse it.

Yes. Like Water Utilities and such. Doesn't change the fact that they don't have a monopoly. In the 90s they did, and when they integrated IE in Windows they incurred an Antitrust lawsuit per Antitrust law. They were considered the sole provider of operating systems for the Intel-based platform, now they are no longer with the biggest co-players being Linux and Mac OS, and now Chrome OS. Web browser competition is also a lot stronger than it ever has been, with the next 2 biggest names being Firefox and Chrome. Had they integrated MS Office into Windows it would've incurred another antitrust, but now there are umpteen open source office platforms out there, like OpenOffice, LibreOffice and Google Docs.

Similarly Intel was once considered the monopolist of x86, and a suit or two occurred while AMD was trying to break into the market (some of those suits were more than justified as well). There is no monopoly issue with ARM.

Did anyone bother to read the EULA ?

What does it say about sending anonymous data back ? /Game over.

In the Preamble it vaguely summarizes

"If you connect your computer to the Internet, some features of the software may connect to Microsoft or service provider computer systems to send or receive information, including personal information. You may not always receive a separate notice when they connect. If you choose to use any of these features, you agree to send or receive this information when using that feature. Many of these features can be switched off or you can choose not to use them."

However this is before Part 1 of the EULA and further, which go on into more specific detail:

[4. Activation] "During activation, the software will send information about the software and your computer to Microsoft. This information includes the version, language, and product key of the software, the Internet protocol address of the computer, and information derived from the hardware configuration of the computer. For more information about activation, see go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=190175. If the licensed computer is connected to the Internet, the software will automatically connect to Microsoft for activation. You can also activate the software manually by Internet or telephone. In either case, Internet and telephone service charges may apply."

Rather than copy and paste the whole of Section 5, it will suffice that it's pretty harmless, mainly relating to hardware and software configuration data. The sketchiest ones being parts e, f, and k (perhaps especially k). Except for part i and n, each part of this section prescribes a way in which each part of section 5 can be readily circumvented (including e, f, and k (use another browser)). Preinstalled apps can even be uninstalled (Section 6) and any personalization in advertising disabled.

http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows_8%20Pro_English_9fc31c44-7e65-4cbf-87b7-0a80ee2a21f7.pdf

I've been told it keeps a record of every USB drive it's seen so it's probably not even safe to use sneakernet.

It probably does. That's not to say it records the contents of the drive, just the existence of the drive and which port it was plugged into, as you'll notice if you plug the same drive into a new port, it 'installs' the flash drive again. All that can tell you is Flash drive XYZ32568J has been plugged into said computer. Depends on how you look at that data, you used the example of oppression, but what about a company that has it's internal files leaked by a corporate spy or former employee? That functionality could help them identify who stole that information (but only if they were really truly anal about tracking the hardware IDs of authorized drives, or forbid the use of drives altogether)

Overheal

Torqay wrote: »

Windows 8 Tells Microsoft About Everything You Install, Not Very Securely

Reread that Kimosabe:

"
Update: According to Microsoft, SmartScreen sends a hash of the app installer and its digital signature, if any. A combination of the hash and the user’s IP address is still enough to identify that IP address x attempted to install software y.
Update 2: Another researcher has discovered that a filename of the app you’re trying to install is indeed sent to Microsoft. This severely strengthens privacy concerns.
Update 3: Approximately 14 hours after this article was published, another scan of Microsoft’s SmartScreen servers reveals that they have been reconfigured to no longer support SSLv2. The servers now only support SSLv3 connections."


PS. SmartScreen is part f of section 5 of the EULA and as I mentioned, it can be disabled.

They sure have a history, and - surprise, surprise - they're at it again:

Microsoft goes back to monopoly forced bundling

I'm aware of the issues regarding the inclusion of Office 2013 Preview on RT. However, they aren't a monopoly in the tablet market; hell, they haven't even been in the market a month.

Whether this becomes a challenge to anti-trust law or not remains to be seen. The lack of 3rd party app store alternatives is not enough to vilify it. It would probably only reach a court if MSFT refused to allow 3rd parties to publish free or paid Office equivalent apps in the store; but I have my bets that LibreOffice or something similar will be on there before the summer.

Fact of the matter, no major OEM can risk to offer their machines without a Microsoft operating system on a global scale. I'm not talking about small-time system builders here.

Remember, Dell were selling computers with Ubuntu pre-installed for a while, they were only allowed to do so under the condition that these machines were not sold cheaper than their Windows counterparts. The power of a monopoly...

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/359740/dell-drops-ubuntu-pcs-from-website-for-now

This is the most relevant article I could find about the issue, which cites low sales figures. I found nothing about being forced into price-fixing. So I'm going to have to ask for proof of that.

Also, Dell has since resumed selling Linux-based machines.

It is also possible they took the $35-50 from the OEM cost of windows and placed it in their pocket for the cost of supporting and testing out the version of linux they are shipping to customers. Seems far nicer than saying "sorry it's linux, we don't offer help for that"

No, they are not but if any representative of such a three-letter agency flash their credentials, Microsoft will give them any information they demand. Don't forget, America is a nation at war and it won't take much to remind them of their "patriotic duties".

You honestly have no clue about the goings on of the US, so stop trying.

Also as far as the information that MSFT has the power to hand over (legally or otherwise), it's scope is quite limited to what you have installed and what hardware configuration you have, your IP address, and if you choose to use some of their more zany features, some URL data.

How often do you whip out your TOR broswer?

Fysh

If we're going to talk about Dell and Linux, i'm going to have to remind everyone that they're happy to sell workstations with RHEL installed. Of course, RHEL is commecially licensed but that's not the point - the point is that if you want a machine with Linux installed, Dell will sell you one and provide drivers. None of that required the version of Linux supplied to be one of the free-as-in-beer variants, nor for the licensing/support costs to be less than they are for Windows.

if we're going to throw around conspiracies, let's at least substantiate the bloody things.