Microsoft to introduce new feature to block installing desktop "apps"

[WelshBloke]

Apple has been doing a walled garden for a long time, yet, people still buy their stuff, so, I don't really see a difference here, but, since MS is doing something like this, it is somehow worse?.

If Microsoft try to compete with Apple by becoming Apple they will lose.

 

[quikah]

If Microsoft try to compete with Apple by becoming Apple they will lose.

I really don't think they are trying to compete with Apple, it is a response to Chromebooks in education (in the US) IMO.

 

[WelshBloke]

I really don't think they are trying to compete with Apple, it is a response to Chromebooks in education (in the US) IMO.

If Microsoft try to compete with Google by turning Windows into ChromeOS they will lose horribly.

 

[quikah]

If Microsoft try to compete with Google by turning Windows into ChromeOS they will lose horribly.

Maybe. If they can get good traction with Minecraft for Education I think they have a good chance.

 

[Zaap]

Apple has been doing a walled garden for a long time, yet, people still buy their stuff, so, I don't really see a difference here, but, since MS is doing something like this, it is somehow worse?

Walled garden with iOS, sure. But even Apple hasn't been delusional enough (yet) with OSX to actually block application installation outside their app store. Now granted, it's clear they want to and are grooming the user base by defaulting to "allow only from App store" but so far there's still the option to bypass it.

The day both Windows and OSX don't actually allow applications outside their app stores... I won't be subjecting myself to linux- I'll just stop using computers altogether.

 

[mikeymikec]

My bet is that MS will go for "only install from the app store" in selective cases, such as MSO. I'm pretty sure they would make a lot more money if people couldn't get away with using ten-year-old copies of MSO. I suspect that they wouldn't go for a straight ban, but some way of rendering old versions of MSO obsolete that doesn't look deliberate.

 

[bruceb]

But depending on what you want MS Office to do, a 3 / 5 / 10 year old version might be fine for Word or Excel use at home. What usually happens, is when you use Outlook to get your emails and the old version won't support new security protocols. Then you have to upgrade or use another email client. Personally if I bought a copy of Office they better be able to activate it, no matter how old it is. It is my choice what version of software to run on my computer.

 

[mikeymikec]

But depending on what you want MS Office to do, a 3 / 5 / 10 year old version might be fine for Word or Excel use at home.

I didn't say otherwise; I said what I thought MS would do with an "only from the app store" strategy. I'm using an ancient version of MS Access because the more recent version I own isn't as good.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

My bet is that MS will go for "only install from the app store" in selective cases, such as MSO. I'm pretty sure they would make a lot more money if people couldn't get away with using ten-year-old copies of MSO. I suspect that they wouldn't go for a straight ban, but some way of rendering old versions of MSO obsolete that doesn't look deliberate.

My concern is with the 80/20 rule. 80% of the Office user base uses 20% of the features in M$ Office. So, my 2007 copy of Office is just fine for me, my needs and the needs of everyone in my household. I would hate to see M$ prevent something like Office 2007 to not being [re]installed just because they want me to buy Office 365. Now take this thought and apply it to, say, Adobe CS5/6. As an amateur photographer whose needs are limited and sustained by the older version I would hate M$ if they partnered in a way to prevent me from [re]installing CS5/6 just because it isn't in the App store. If I own it, I should be able to use it unless the core operating can be proven not capable of allowing it--as opposed to a core business decision not allowing it.

 

[bruceb]

I agree about Office. For the home user the older versions are just fine for most jobs. Except when you use Outlook to access your emails. Some email providers need either TLS or SSL encryption and early versions of Outlook do not support it. Also in newer Office Outlook like in 2010 the program can self configure for your email service. Older versions can not do that. That said, I won a Legit copy of Office 2007 Ultimate and also of Office 2016 Professional with genuine licenses direct form Microsoft. So one way or the other I have a copy I can use. My old Dell uses Office XP for Word / Excel and contacts in Outlook.. Works just fine. But offices need the latest versions especially if they are using the newer .docx or .xlsx formats

 

[Mike64]

https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-j...ting-installation-of-bloatware-in-windows-10/

Ya gotta wonder how much Microsoft paid that article's author to write it? /

Pure. Fscking. Evil.

No argument there...

But if you're talking about Joe/Jane Average,

Edit: Ironically, this WILL undoubtedly push more people onto Linux, because at that point, it will be MORE compatible (through WINE and it's ilk) with Win32 applications, than "Windows" itself.

don't bet even one shiny new penny on that...