SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Microsoft has added a setting to Windows 10 that will let users restrict new software installation to only those apps hosted in the Windows Store. The option debuted in the latest version of Windows 10 Insider, the preview program which gives participants an early peek at the next feature upgrade as Microsoft builds it. That version, labeled 15042, was released Friday.
With the setting at its most stringent, Windows 10 will block the installation of Win32 software -- the traditional legacy applications that continue to make up the vast bulk of the Windows ecosystem -- and allow users to install only apps from the Windows Store, Microsoft's marketplace. Other settings allow software installation from any source, or, while allowing that, put a preference on those from the Windows Store.
Unless Microsoft removes them, the options will appear in the next Windows 10 feature upgrade, dubbed "Creators Update," which is to launch in March or April.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday March 02 2017, @02:47AM (18 children)
The clear plan all along with Windows 10 was to no longer try to make their money from users (who were pirating like crazy), but from application developers just like Apple does. The only way they can do that is if they make it hard to sell your software without going through their approval process and online store where Microsoft gets a substantial cut of the sale.
So, now that this setting exists:
- The next step will be to make it on by default (which seems reasonable - after all, something has to be the default setting).
- The step after that will be to add in dire security warnings about how you're putting yourself at horrible risk if you change that setting (which seems reasonable - after all, software from $DEITY-knows-where can do all sorts of bad things).
- The step after that will be making it only possible to change that setting if you go into the registry or some other equally challenging procedure that Aunt Tilly can't possibly pull off (which seems reasonable - after all, we don't want users to accidentally put themselves in a bad security state).
- The step after that will be eliminating the option to do anything other than only get your applications from the store (which will seem reasonable - after all, only geeky wizardly types are even trying to do anything else).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday March 02 2017, @03:27AM (8 children)
- The step after that will be eliminating app installations altogether; after all, any software you could/should possibly use comes part of the base Windows installation. You might need to upgrade* to Ultra Black Extra Core Edition for some features however.
*) May incur an upgrade fee.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday March 02 2017, @03:43AM (7 children)
No, it's not.
If they forced everyone to only use MS software, then they'd only make money with the software they create and maintain, and creating and maintaining application software is difficult and expensive. Whereas if they force everyone onto the Windows Store, they make money off of every single application idea that anybody ever has, and they only have to do the relatively easy job of being the middleman, while taking on none of the risk or costs because the application developer has to do that.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday March 02 2017, @05:20AM (6 children)
You're assuming people will actually write apps for Windows.
Back in the day, win32 used to be *the* "open" API which everyone who was someone targeted. Developers, developers, developers! Those devs then got split into win32 vs .Net camps, and then further into whatever the current "unified" environment is called (I haven't done development for Windows in many years). Win32 and .Net(?) are deprecated. Last statistics I saw showed a marked decrease in the number of active developers for Windows.
Windows isn't cool to develop for these days. Windows apps aren't cool. Contrast that against the IOS or even Android camps - that's where the action is, that's where the new blood goes.
My prediction is Windows will end up having to do a Blackberry garden, because no one will care enough to write apps for it, simply because the market share isn't there, and because the market share isn't there, it won't attract new users or developers on the scale needed. Steam, Blizzard & co will be the last hold-outs before the thing implodes.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday March 02 2017, @05:52AM
Steam at least have SteamOS for PC gamers/users to fall back onto, and if they take a leaf out of Linux Mint's book and make it "just work", you'll likely see other game devs approaching them.
Or SteamMachines become the new "Mac", as it were.
Worse case scenario, you'll end up with BlizzardOS, UbisoftOS, and EAOS (shudder).
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:24AM
It will be an interesting day when the best option to run existing Windows applications is to install Wine.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday March 02 2017, @02:35PM (3 children)
Nothing split. The people in the so-called .net camp didn't just get up from the win32 camp and take their toys with them. Microsoft moved them there after migrating their preferred managed languages like Visual Basic and Java to the .net CLR. And those languages used win32 underneath to begin with. Perhaps when they released C# you could say they enticed some C/C++ devs to move to .net but that was a technical choice. And C/C++ does not run on the .net CLR unless you are using Visual C++ (Anyone ever seen it used in the wild? I haven't).
Since when? That rumor when Windows 8/RT was released? Or way back when .Net was released? It's nothing more than FUD unless you can point me to an official MS statement.
Cool? Nothing to do with cool. It's just a shift is the way the market is heading. Before the smart phone and tablet, you needed a PC to get online. Now everyone has a smartphone in their pocket. Why build your application for one platform when you can target so many more? Every Joe blow who had a PC used them for the internet an email. Maybe played some games. They moved to mobile as it was more convenient.
I don't doubt this. But it won't be because no one is writing apps for it. It will be because they are hopping on the mobile bandwagon and forcing people to go through app stores to make more money. But honestly, I dont see it happening any time soon. There is still a metric shit ton of productivity, gaming, and automation software on Windows that isn't going anywhere. MS could try to wall them in but that would mean truly killing win32 which would be suicide.
Disclaimer: I'm not a windows fanboy. Just a realist.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:12PM (1 child)
Before the smart phone and tablet, you needed a PC to get online. Now everyone has a smartphone in their pocket. Why build your application for one platform when you can target so many more?
Because a flat sheet of glass isn't the ideal input device for all applications, and not everybody who carries a smartphone or tablet is also willing to carry the necessary input devices. For example, reading email on a smartphone is convenient, but writing more than a paragraph or so without a Bluetooth or USB OTG keyboard is painful. And plenty of video game genres are unplayable on smartphones without a Bluetooth or USB OTG keyboard or gamepad because the user ends up pressing outside the virtual gamepad buttons because he can't feel their edges to line up his thumbs.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday March 02 2017, @10:21PM
You missed that part. My final point was the PC isn't going anywhere. Neither is Windows and Win32.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Friday March 03 2017, @03:17AM
> It's nothing more than FUD unless you can point me to an official MS statement.
Tune in to Build, and all you'll hear is UWP UWP UWP. Anything new sounds like it's UWP-only. A quick google came up with this link as a summary:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/3049927/microsoft-windows/microsoft-to-devs-its-uwp-or-bust.html [infoworld.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Thursday March 02 2017, @03:53AM (5 children)
Sigh, do we REALLY need to be using FUD on an OS that already sucks? Really? This has been reported on for ages on the Insider channel where it has been made clear numerous times this is for Win 10 Cloud, an OS designed to compete with Chrome OS and doesn't have fuck all to do with Windows 10 vanilla. In fact unlike ChomeOS you can buy an upgrade (if you are a consumer as opposed to a student or business user where the school/corp has admin rights) that will let you turn Win 10 Cloud into Vanilla Win 10 if you so choose.
But it doesn't have jack shit to do with Windows 10 vanilla, or with some sort of EEE strategy, it has to do with the fact Google has been handing MSFT their ass on a platter for several years in the education sector with Chromebooks so this is designed to give Windows an SKU with the same features (or lack of) that ChromeOS has, locked down, no admin rights, installs limited to approved software, no different than any Chromebook you can grab at Worst Buy.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @12:57PM
From your sig:
Maybe never seen by you. But that's no reason not to help others recognize your faults. If you don't notice that, well … your problem, not mine.
What if they post as AC? Either you don't see them, then you are not ready to show them for anything, and thus this claim is wrong. Or you are ready to show them for the racists they are, then you obviously have to see them, and therefore your previous claim is not true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @03:13PM
> But it doesn't have jack shit to do with Windows 10 vanilla, or with some sort of EEE strategy.
Are you saying that MS, Google and Apple would not like to end up in the same situation as the iphone ecosystem, a tightly controlled walled garden?
(AC, but question is rhetorical)
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:18PM (1 child)
[Windows 10 Cloud] is designed to give Windows an SKU with the same features (or lack of) that ChromeOS has, locked down, no admin rights, installs limited to approved software, no different than any Chromebook you can grab at Worst Buy.
In effect, a successor to Windows RT. The problem comes when all affordable compact laptops that you can try in a showroom near you ship with Windows 10 Cloud, Chrome OS, or another similarly locked down operating system.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday March 03 2017, @02:59AM
Did you really not bother reading what I posted? If you buy a cheap laptop with Win 10 Cloud (which like Win 10 on small tablets will be free to OEMs) and you decide you want full Win 10 you can pay a fee and have it convert to Win 10 Vanilla unlike a Chromebook. Now how much it will cost hasn't been decided yet because they haven't decided if you will just be able to convert to Home or if you will be able to go all the way to Enterprise if you want, but so far the numbers bouncing around the Insider Channel has been $40 for Win 10 Home and probably $75 for Pro if they allow Cloudbooks to go that far.
Considering the OEMs aren't paying zip for the OS? That isn't a bad deal and certainly cheaper than you can go out and buy a retail copy of Win 10 for. Personally I can't stand Win 10 (have to do too damned much reg hacking to get it to STFU) but if you just wanted a cheap laptop? Paying an extra $40 for a Win 10 vanilla from Cloud conversion really don't sound like much of a hardship, not if they are priced the same as Chromebooks.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @09:57PM
So if one is running Windows 10 vanilla the options aren't / won't be there?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @04:01AM
I saw it more as yet another toggle for active directory. Basically the ability to control if your users can install from the store or not. Kind of 'meh' to me.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday March 02 2017, @01:25PM
Or buying the enterprise edition which will only be available through volume licensing via a VAR, and only after connection to domain controller with a GPO granting access.
No. The last step would be removing the ability to run win32 and only support metro as was done in Windows RT.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday March 02 2017, @06:08PM
The step after that will be eliminating the option to do anything other than only get your applications from the store (which will seem reasonable - after all, only geeky wizardly types are even trying to do anything else).
Then how will Visual Studio be able to execute the compiled form of the source code that the user has entered?