It's really hard to parse articles from OSNews, Groklaw, and by Redhat employees about Microsoft and Windows 8, specifically, to try and filter out the bias and hate and cut to the chase.

First, the very first line.

>And thus, Microsoft bites itself in its behind with Metro.

Uh what? Putting the supposed conclusion as the first line as if the the headline says everything? (BTW the headline is pretty obtuse, even for a geek like me).

> Microsoft has had to define a separate application class [.docx] - aside from Metro and desktop applications - just to make third party web browsers possible for Windows 8.

Isn't that a good thing? Microsoft is already one step better than Apple that it's making special allowances in the security sandbox for browsers? Try developing a real browser for the current post-PC iOS devices.

Why is this being spun into a bad thing? The problem is that allowing everything will allow malware/spyware to come into the picture. Then these very same people disparaging MS for this move would then disparage Windows devices as insecure and virus-prone and recommend people switch to other platforms! Not to mention very real battery life concerns.

Also, all the desktop browsers will continue to work the same on Windows 8 x86 PCs and tablets. You can even have them as the only app pinned in the default start screen!

>This stuff all came out because the Firefox team has announced it's working on implementing such a Metro style enabled desktop browser. However, Microsoft has provided very little information on this obscure third application class as of yet, making it very hard for browser developers to properly target it. Of course, Windows 8 is still in development, but considering the company's past behaviour, it's easy to assume they're doing this on purpose.

Right, and when Microsoft has to change something in Windows 8 that will affect 3rd party browsers, these very same people will be yelling about an intentional conspiracy to break those browsers and slow down development. In short, you can never satisfy these folks. So why even bother trying? They will dislike MS at any cost, so it's better for MS to do things the right way and at their own pace.

Already MS loses the VIOLA! Steve Jobs type unveiling moment because of the constant sharing of information with developers and users via extensive blogs and pre-release versions which will likely reduce the hype and sales at launch.

>Another uncertainty at this point is the ARM version of Windows 8. A Metro style enabled desktop browser must be distributed the old-fashioned way as opposed to through the new Windows Store, and since the traditional desktop is locked down on the ARM version (i.e., it is not possible to install applications outside of the Windows Store on ARM), this currently means Mozilla and Google will not be able to distribute Firefox or Chrome for the ARM version of Windows 8.

We are constantly reminded here and everywhere that there is no tablet market and there is only an iPad market. Why don't these same people complain about third party browsers being completely banned on the iPad which has a huge share in the tablet market? Why pick on WoA that is essentially starting from zero and has a mountain to climb before getting any share and has the odds stacked against it with 200K iPad apps etc. (and will likely fail according to many pundits) ?

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/03/...

Going back to the first line and conclusion of the article:

>And thus, Microsoft bites itself in its behind with Metro

How? Is that because they have specially allowed 3rd party browsers unlike the super successful iPad>? The IE10 in the previews released so far seem pretty fast and decent. I feel dimmer after reading the article and for the people who accuse Microsoft of FUD, all this smells very much like misleading FUD against Metro.