yes, I recall there was lots of joy going around with jpeg patent threats back then. Let's relive that it was so much fun.

LoB

probably very much like HTML5 video since it was corporate greed which fractured the HTML5 video standard and allowed so many differing implementations. IIRC, Microsoft would not accept anything but the ability to use their own codecs so the spec didn't get cleaned up and it was allowed to be a mess.

Surely Microsoft was involved in the WebRTC spec but then again, for 20 something years they have opposed open standards and felt doing it their own way, and usually a Windows-only way, was how they played. This just sems like the same old Microsoft way of doing it.

The only thing is, they might still own the desktop but the big growth market is mobile and they are not even players on the same field. I mean doesn't RIM have more market share than Microsoft?

LoB

so pour epoxy in the USB ports and last I checked, Windows still worked on a standards based TCP/IP network.

LoB

this is the first time a USB devices has been found to pass an infection on to a host computer.

Sorry about all the coffee or Coke on your keyboard.

LoB

because a few Linux stations for USB data staging, scanning and final file relocation onto the network is just so outrageously expensive...

LoB

I agree 100% with your title that it's a silly proposition but not because IE is good, bad, or ugly. It's silly if you know anything about Microsoft's business practices over the last 2+ decades. They will continue to force IE on users because they must continue to own the majority of the developers. And any move to open standards is just temporary and for marketing purposes only. Microsoft is not getting into the phone and tablet market because they're looking for profits there it's about protecting the desktop and protecting the developer base. This is the exact reason why Microsoft does not do what Apple did or what Google did and that is build a mobile OS designed specifically and uniquely for the device model. They've tied Windows mobile to Windows desktop and Windows Server because fracturing the developer base makes them easier pickings. And being fractured means no dominance, no control.

Developers, developers, developers and going to Webkit and throwing out Microsoft IE on any of their platform does not follow that mantra their fearless leader, also known as Uncle Fester, has on the flag he runs up and down the hallways waving. Or not.

LoB

because they saw it as the only way to get developers and apps for the Windows Phone OS. The reason for that is because without a phone presence of sufficient size they'd slowly lose not only the tablet market but also more and more of the desktop. Unlike any other company, Microsoft is 100% reliant on one product, the desktop computer. Sure they make over 30% of their profits from the server but without the server being tied at the hip with the Windows desktop, and visa-versa, they would lose all control of that market and quickly become just another player and lose billions in profits annually.

All this Windows 8 desktop UI change is about forcing, via still owning pre-loading channels, a new API platform on millions so they can market to developers to get on board those APIs and make applications which will also run on the Windows Phone phones and Windows based tablets. It is still all about developers, developers, developers as Monkey Boy once ranted in public.

LoB

they didn't release to PalmOS but eventually bought the market by paying companies to ship WindowsCE based PDAs. This is really out of character for Microsoft but then again, they have tried how many times with a Windows Phone and a Windows Tablet and failed? Apple's design and costs are going to be tough for Microsoft to break into and Android's utilitarian capabilities and existing market share also very tough to break into.

But you know, Microsoft once supported running Windows apps on UNIX until NT gained enough market share and many major UNIX apps were ported. Then they yanked the rug out from under it and vendors were left with having to spend millions porting back to UNIX or stick with a Windows-only code base.

What has surprised me more is how many XBox ads I see compared to Windows 8 ads. It seems to be at least 2:1 ratio. I guess they are doubling down on the one thing which seems to finally be showing growth and profit growth. I mean if Windows 8 fails and the PC segment keeps shrinking, they'll need something to pick up and replace those lost revenues or the stock will collapse. IMO

LoB

Microsoft declared the Windows 95 user interface some great research project where it was determined to be the best UI since sliced bread. Forget that they attempted to include even a small portion of the UI elements in the IBM OS/2 UI called the Workplaceshell but had to back them out because of performance issues. Vista was said to be the same, 'research said' or 'users asked for' blah blah blah. And so world and his dog have hammered through using that UI for going on 2 decades.

So exactly how many years of experience with the XP UI has this 3 year old had? I'm sure the kid is also simulating workloads found in the typical office setup too.

These kinds of Microsoft promotions remind me of why I dislike election season too. Lots of ads with little validity all over the place.

LoB

Because developing software and playing games are what Benioff was talking about? I don't think so. So you mentioned fringe areas where the cloud isn't the answer. Microsoft and their Windows software business can not survive with just that market.

LoB

yes, Microsoft fooled them all into thinking they had an open system when in fact they were slowly being tied to a single software platform, a single vendor and now to some extent a single hardware definition. Exactly what the entire PC market rallied against in the beginning. Unfortunately those tied into this Microsoft world see all these ways to enable new use cases and computing models as hardships and their only solution is to bring them all back into one Microsoft way via things like VDI. VDI should be the exception and not the rule.

LoB

the only way I read any validity into what he said was in the context of also using remote computing. I know a few who got off the Microsoft Windows bandwagon and do just fine running virtual machines once in a while locally but do lots of their business work using remote connections into their Windows environments at the office. When BYOD means you have bluetooth input devices at the office or at home and these remote access mechanisms in place there's no need for a local Windows box.

Given the above scenario and the life expectancy of Windows 7, in 5+ years who thinks there won't be even more migrations away from Win32 tied apps to even more cloud based solutions? It does mean that there really would be little need for Windows 8.

Also remember, Microsoft forces their new OS on the retail channels( remember how Vista was forced when nobody wanted it? ) and likes to use those sales numbers showing how many shipped units of Windows X there was for the 1st and 2nd year on the market. Businesses don't buy these new releases so soon so those numbers were always mostly pre-loads at retail. Considering how much the Windows is slowing at the retail channels(notice how poorly OEMs are doing lately?) Microsoft is going to have to pull big numbers of shipped Windows 8 PCs out of their thin air. Not to mention it's not likely home buyers are going to swarm to Windows RT on tablets given they all are running Windows XP, Vista, or 7 now and already have Android or Apple products. I see them picking up a Windows RT device and going 'WTF is this, what else do you have?'.

And then there's the jumping on the Post-PC era bandwagon to help get the message across that things are changing and that's what cloud vendors call marketing.

LoB

Nice to see an open source implementation already.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Arduino-EV-J1772-Charging-Station/?ALLSTEPS

LoB

right but don't lots of the same ISV APIs shared across phone, tablet and desktop now that Microsoft is pushing the UI formerly known as Metro, across all devices? That would mean the core OS is the same and so are a somewhat large chunk of the developer APIs and all that which is there to support it.

I'm thinking less like Android which really does use mostly the kernel and everything else is in the Dalvik JVM, and more like Meego. ie Android has little in common with desktop GNU/Linux while Meego had lots more in common.

If it really is just a Windows kernel/core and the APIs are so very different between the devices, I don't see why Microsoft would be pushing developers to Metro apps. Sure desktop Windows has all the included Win32 old stuff but we're talking the cross device stuff here.

LoB

I thought Windows was ported to ARM and all Windows 8 devices were now based on that ARM port( not the x86 version so much ). That is Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 RT( tablets) both running the Windows 8 for ARM OS but with modified UI for the screen size and obvious APIs differences for what the device has/needs/uses like making phone calls. The fact that the Windows Phone 8 phones now have multi core support and added memory capabilities lead me to believe this was due to using the x86 ported Windows system to ARM.

So Windows Phone 8 is still a Windows CE based OS?

LoB