Wasn't old windows desktop technology the one proven to be bad? I mean I can say this because I like windows, but people have made fun of windows bugs and viruses for three decades now..
Granted, Windows Store still sucks ass years later its introduction, but building a new ecosystem with unified and modern tooling was probably a necessary step for them to make
There as nothing wrong with their desktop core technology. Visita at least allowed them to solve the security issues, and with seven they had a really great, solid desktop OS. The problem was actively undermining all that with Metro and RT. What’s popular and effective about 10 is all the crud they stripped off it, much more than anything they added, just as with 7.
> with seven they had a really great, solid desktop OS. The problem was actively undermining all that with Metro and RT.
I sometimes wonder if maybe they should have done a hard fork between 7 and 8 and continue to develop 7 for commercial users and 8 would be the consumer version.
In the commercial branch, they could undo some of the moves they made years ago (like putting GDI in the kernel rather than user space) to eventually get a more stable, secure OS.
I think they recently put backs tons of kernel space code back in userspace (in recent versions of 10), probably because the quantity of discovered security vulns started to become really ridiculous.
The security issues aren't "solved" as long as the expectation is that apps run with full user privileges; that's why the AppContainer/UWP model was and is needed.
Define proven to be bad. What is the metric there? And note also who considers it "proven bad". It was winning and also the better ui at the time. It did indeed had bugs, but not really that many of them affected most users - who were fully comfortable restarting and go. The viruses were issue through.
The thing with "people making fun" through is that a lot of it was by-product of culture war between linux and windows world. between radical ideological open source and closed source - where Microsoft engaged in a lot of ugly tactic. Between techies who wanted tech focused on their needs and commercial company that cared significantly less about needs of admins, tinkerers and such.
Meaning, the jokes were much more political and much less technical. They were often result of people hating Microsoft (recall their ugly tactic).
>Wasn't old windows desktop technology the one proven to be bad? I mean I can say this because I like windows, but people have made fun of windows bugs and viruses for three decades now.
A lot of that stuff could have been (and is now being) fixed incrementally. Lots of that tech is available to Windows desktop applications without needing to switch to UWP. Some of it is UWP only (except for a backstage pass for Edge, which tells you everything you need to know) only to push developers to the Store.
> Wasn't old windows desktop technology the one proven to be bad? I mean I can say this because I like windows, but people have made fun of windows bugs and viruses for three decades now..
I feel like MS had mostly quashed these problems with XP - it was certainly not bug-free, but after a few years was a solid enough platform many used it all the way to (and probably past) its EoL in 2014.
Wasn't old windows desktop technology the one proven to be bad? I mean I can say this because I like windows, but people have made fun of windows bugs and viruses for three decades now..
Granted, Windows Store still sucks ass years later its introduction, but building a new ecosystem with unified and modern tooling was probably a necessary step for them to make