First Ring Daily 1046: A 10X Windows

Posted on May 7, 2021 by Brad Sams in First Ring Daily, Podcasts with 8 Comments

On this episode of First Ring Daily, Windows has a 10X, Epic, and Apple has more to talk about and getting started with starter.

RSS | SoundCloud | YouTube iTunes | Google Play



Tagged with

Join the discussion!

BECOME A THURROTT MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Register
Comments (8)

8 responses to “First Ring Daily 1046: A 10X Windows”

  1. Avatar

    pcoates42

    No trimmed-down offering with Windows in the name will work because as Paul points out the expectation is always that all Windows programs will work. They need to give it a new name like "Portholes" or something.

  2. Avatar

    L Gilles

    What revolution will have to happen for Microsoft to go further than the Windows as we know it ?

    They need to brake the "deep" legacy to embrace ARM processors.

    Can they bring Linux to the consumer level ?

    They need to be bold and brake things.

    • Avatar

      james.h.robinson

      What are you even talking about?


      What do you mean by "Microsoft going than the Windows as we know it?" Do you mean new operating systems? Do you mean like Windows Embedded/Windows 10 IoT?


      Why should Windows "brake" [sic] the deep legacy? Part of the reason why Windows is so successful in the enterprise is because of their support to legacy technologies.


      "Linux to the customer level?" Doesn't that already exist in the form of Chrome OS?


      And have you ever heard of Azure?

      • Avatar

        L Gilles

        Windows 10 will not succeed on ARM, it's too complex and if you want to call it Windows something you need the legacy, you said it.

        Azure is for servers not for main stream devices.

        The need something new or they just give up on the OS and win with the services ? I don't mind.

        It's just that I expect something.

        • Avatar

          bettyblue

          Windows could succeed on ARM. It is no more complex than MacOS. The issue is Microsoft currently has no real reason to do so. Plus they would really need to make their own chips for it too be successful which is a huge investment. Apple has already made that investment.


          Microsoft would have to lose some major market share to Apple because the M series chips, becoming so much better and pulling users away, before they did anything.

          • Avatar

            Paul Thurrott

            Actually, Windows is more complex than macOS when it comes to cross-platform code. Apple has already moved its platform to be 64-bit only, where Windows is a combination of 32-bit and 64-bit code. And Apple is moving completely to ARM, where Microsoft is only supporting ARM as a secondary platform. So everything on Mac will be ARM-native in just a few years, where Windows and the apps it urns are mostly x86 native, even when running on ARM. Windows also suffers from multiple generations of backward compatibility concerns, going all the way back to MS-DOS. MacOS does not have that problem.
  3. Avatar

    ghostrider

    MS have tried multiple times to kill win32, but it's failed every time, and I don't see any way out of this for them. It's the Enterprise MS needs to convince, and that looks extremely unlikely as they have so many dependencies on LoB apps that they need to keep running. This is one of the reasons MS are trying to push everyone to their cloud as it gives them more options, and with DaaS coming, I think that will now be Microsoft's focus. The consumer is just along for the ride - they can take it or leave it - it's the Enterprise where the money is, and companies like MS will always follow the money.

  4. Avatar

    glenn8878

    There are solutions to this, but this is where fragmentation might occur, but it's for the best.


    The Enterprise version should be available for businesses to use full compatibility. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop businesses from not upgrading old versions of Windows and Internet Explorer. We all know there's a business somewhere still using Windows XP or 7 and IE 6.


    Consumer Windows versions should not have backwards compatibility. If they do, they should upgrade to Windows Pro version. I thought this whole component approach to Windows development should mean if backwards compatibility is required, a patch file can be downloaded to make it work.


    Windows should simply be developed for the newest application model with an actual cut-off. Then everyone will know what to aim for. Isn't that why Adobe Flash won't be supported anymore? Microsoft is the nearly the last to remove it from the OS.


    We don't need an new Windows 10X or S Mode. Everything that is happening in the background is not the users' concern. Windows complexity is the problem and everything that is proposed hasn't fix the complexity.

Leave a Reply