- Aug 25, 2001
- 50,801
- 6,269
- 126
Thinking about this.
If MS was really doing "S Mode" for Security, but still wanted to allow their end-users to run programs (Win64 applications) like Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, then why don't they provide a ready-made VM or instance VMs for installing those applications into, much like a sort of Windows-style (using VMs) "Docker container". They could remote the UI back to the desktop. In fact, I thought that I had read that Microsoft wanted to do that for the "future of Windows" - run every application in it's own VM.
Considering that Windows 10 "S Mode" cannot normally run those Win64 applications AT ALL, that MS would be willing to provide a workaround.
UNLESS...
MS's SOLE GOAL was to make "Google Chrome" (and by association, Mozilla Firefox) NOT ABLE TO RUN. Much like Lotus 1-2-3 on DOS. ("DOS ain't done, till Lotus won't run!")
Edit: Call it a "Win64 application condom", if they have to. (Even if they piss off certain religious people with that terminology.)
If MS was really doing "S Mode" for Security, but still wanted to allow their end-users to run programs (Win64 applications) like Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, then why don't they provide a ready-made VM or instance VMs for installing those applications into, much like a sort of Windows-style (using VMs) "Docker container". They could remote the UI back to the desktop. In fact, I thought that I had read that Microsoft wanted to do that for the "future of Windows" - run every application in it's own VM.
Considering that Windows 10 "S Mode" cannot normally run those Win64 applications AT ALL, that MS would be willing to provide a workaround.
UNLESS...
MS's SOLE GOAL was to make "Google Chrome" (and by association, Mozilla Firefox) NOT ABLE TO RUN. Much like Lotus 1-2-3 on DOS. ("DOS ain't done, till Lotus won't run!")
Edit: Call it a "Win64 application condom", if they have to. (Even if they piss off certain religious people with that terminology.)