[Windows 8 General] e.mote:
>Considering that app sideloading already is (and always has been) allowed for Metro apps, I assume you just mean it needs to be... what, more visible?

The only way I know of to sideload Metro is to sign up as a MS dev. If you know of another way, please share. But if such is what you meant, then I'm flabbergasted that you'd think that this is OK for regular users, and all that it needs is a little more "visibility." Please head over to the barren wasteland that is the Windows Development sub-forum to see how *NOT* OK this is even for the geeks.

>For myself, I'd like to see more powerful Metro apps.

I'm not sure what you mean by powerful apps, but the appeal of the vast Win32 software library goes beyond the staple commercial productivity software. As a techie and user, I'm bound to the abundance of useful and critical utilities that make their home on the web. These were built up over the decades by hobbyists, and will not be replaced any time soon. Especially not when garage devs are locked out of being able to freely share their labors, as what Metro does.

I shouldn't need to explain what the network effect means, or how it has played an instrumental part in virtual every successful online ventures in recent years. Let me repeat: Grassroots support is key. That does not happen with an "all your bases are belong to us" attitude.

This segues into my larger pessimism of MS. While I wish it every chance of success, my (negative) assessment of its outlook hasn't changed, because its failing strategy hasn't changed. Changing MS' business model is more than just making one part free and charging for some other part. It is about how to gain critical mass adoption, even at the expense of zero revenue. The distinction is important: Google made Android free, and only monetize after it is widely adopted. MS makes Windows (partially) free, but still wants its money up front, by charging for some other part to offset the licensing loss.

Here's a more clear-cut example: MS Office. MS is charging $70/$100 per year for end-users for O365. Why? Because Office still has a business monopoly. If MS truly wants to have wide adoption for its Office wares, it would have made Office free for non-biz use. The high fee is a guarantee that Office will never be popular with end-users, and increases the likelihood that it will be supplanted by an alternative somewhere down the road (cf. Windows). Think of where Youtube would have ended up if MS had owned it from the outset.

MS' announcement that Windows will be free for mobile was an important first step. But from every indicator I've seen, MS' mentality is still "money first," and it only relinquishes its profits when absolutely forced to (which by then is probably too late). Think of what could've been if Surface RT had been priced at, say, $300 instead of $500. The same scene is being replayed with Office and XBox One. MS is trying to position XB1 as the $500 living-room box, while the competition is at the $100 mark. Good luck with that.

I fully understand and even empathize with MS' decisions. As an entity answerable to its shareholders, it must try to grow its revenue every quarter or face backlash. The billions in profit margins from its cashcows are both an asset and a liability. It has to keep looking for the next wave of billions, even if at the expense of the long term.

BTW, Win 8.1u1 is reportedly a mandatory upgrade, ie if you don't, no more updates for you. This provides some insight on how MS will drive future upgrades, especially as the OS becomes ever more dependent on online resources. SaaS will play a big role going forward, and most likely not to the user's liking.

---------- Post added at 03:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 AM ----------

>Anyone else in the non-touch, mouse and keyboard gang looking at changes?

I'm not much for relating my own personal experience, because my use is atypical, and I know better to generalize from the first person. That said, I have no problem with Win 8.x. I skipped 8 because it was 1.0, and I know enough of MS wares to avoid 1.0 revs.

I standardized on 8.1 when replacing my batch of PCs/laptops last year. Aside from the hassles in removing Metro's presence from my workflow, I thought it was a slightly better Win7. Updated drivers/periph support is a big deal. The Start Menu thing wasn't a bother, since there were plenty of 3rd-party alternatives. That's my SOP anyway, replacing many built-in MS parts with 3rd-party tools. For example, I uninstalled the Media Player in favor of MPC-HC with built-in LAVfilters. So, the public brouhaha about Win8's "unfriendliness" don't apply to me. It's just a platform to run things, and most of my things aren't from MS.

My eval of Metro was some months ago, and its apps weren't pertinent for my use. I don't do social media on the desktop, and I have no use for most of MS services. So, Metro being more "desktop friendly" is again irrelevant to this user. I'll revisit Metro when there are software that I deem useful. I don't foresee that happening any time soon.

In a nutshell, I'm neutral to Win 8.x. I neither hate it, nor do I love it. It's still the same platform to run things from.

I will say that MS has yet to make a compelling case for touch use on PCs. For actual desktop PCs, it's a snowball's chance in hell, as the ergonomics alone (ie reaching out 3' to touch your 24" LCD) is an impossible deterrent. For laptops, it's more doable, but as said, Metro has yet to improve from its tablet/phone UI after 2 years, and from poor sales of 2n1's, my opinion runs the same as the public's.

MS is being vague about future revs. My SWAG is that we'll see another minor update this fall, and Win9 (ie major rev) next year. Even without the corroborating rumors, marketing dictates pretty much demand it.