When the software is actually useful? Maybe.

When the software consists of nothing more than worthless single-site browsers that do nothing but show a webpage? Definitely not.

Tell me: Would you like all the software on your computer to consist of nothing but web page frontends? If so, you may want to switch to Chrome OS, and I hope you enjoy your laggy response time and inevitable "cloud" data loss.

"App Generator" and similar services for iOS and Android are the reason why crApp stores are filled with millions of worthless crApps. What exactly is the point of a single crApp that functions exactly like a web browser but is limited to a single site, when you could just use the system web browser to do the same thing?

Of course, Apple and BlackBerry love the concept, because it means they get to claim they have "millions of crApps". (Ironically, just a few years ago, Apple fanboys were claiming that the Mac platform was better because even though it had fewer applications, the quality was higher than Windows. Funny how their tone changed when the iPhone App Store was unveiled.)

The only thing I remember Maple Story for was how they blocked any browser that wasn't Internet Explorer from even viewing their website a few years ago. Screw them.

On PCs, you have real software available for use. On the iPad (and other tablets and smartphones), all you have are crApps (crappy apps), 99% of which are simply bloated frontends to websites. (Some of them even charge subscription fees for what would otherwise be a free site.)

Sadly, the crApp trend has started to spread to desktop systems. Most recently, this happened with Final Cut Pro X, which is now only available as a crApp - and consequently, has gotten lots of negative press. Unity on Ubuntu also calls installed software "apps" instead of applications, and it's been received pretty poorly as well.

The "App Store" isn't a store for "apps"; it's a store for crApps (crappy applications). They're mostly shitty programs that don't have much functionality and/or are simply wrappers around WebKit that only allow access to a single website.

Upon looking at it a second time, it seems that the UI comments only really apply to the Mac version. The screenshots of the Windows version don't look too horribly designed, but whatever.

From the program's website:

Real administrators have had this functionality for years, it's called "ssh" with public key authentication. (There's absolutely no legitimate use for remote access with zero authentication.)

No one uses Delphi for writing serious software.

Congratulations, welcome to the 21st century! Unicode has been supported by pretty much all mainstream operating systems for years. The fact that they have to mention it is indicative of poor software quality. Oh yeah, and the UI looks like it was designed by a 10-year-old in Visual Basic 6.

tl;dr, this program isn't worth bothering with for *any* operating system for any use. It's just so poorly written that it'll probably break while being used.

This right here is why "HD" is a joke. You've got 1366x768 "720p" displays that are only capable of showing 1280x720 signals, and now there's "1440p" displays that are non-square 1440x1080 instead of the expected 2560x1440. Either that or you're mistaken, since the slides in TFA mention 2560x1600.

My definition of "app" is a program that merely functions as a frontend to a website, and provides no additional functionality whatsoever outside of perhaps a few fancy images. Look at the iPhone App Store and you'll find thousands of these "apps" for different websites, all of which are nothing more than Safari wrappers hard-coded for a specific website.

I'm currently a student at Drexel University, and they've had gigabit Internet links for several years. It was initially implemented in the main buildings, but then extended to dorms around two years ago. I regularly download files from public Internet servers at over 20 MB/s, and the connection's mostly limited by my laptop's hard drive.

"It's possible you'll be able to purchase a USB accessory to connect Gamecube devices to."

Nintendo can't even emulate N64 memory cards. What makes you think they'll be able to emulate GameCube memory cards and controllers over USB? (Also the fact that the Wii doesn't support use of e.g. the Classic Controller in GC mode.)