I'm not sure where these fanboys are... The only ones I am seeing being "fanboyish" are official or affiliated sources. Surface reviews aside, since that actually seems like it is going to be a nice product.
The fanboys are abundant at Fanboy Central aka Neowin.net.
or German site winfuture.de
other sites as well (PcMag, Cnet, etc). But the most pathetic and hilarious are at MSDN on the Official Destroying Windows Blog
. These people have absolute disdain for Freedom of Choice and are on a Jihad to convince detractors that it somehow makes sense for Microsoft (or actually the subset that make up the Metro
contingent) to select the theme for everbody's desktop and how they interact with it. These people of course would have a baby if they turned on their computer and some virus (or some playful malware) suddenly changed their theme and all the associated components. I swear, if Microsoft were to release Ubuntu
or any other 'nix labeled as Windows 8
these drones would still cheer. This could be easily proved if somebody conducted a Mojave'nix Experiment
("shhh, we've substituted the DVD of these unsuspecting users ..."
Sure, MS wouldn't be what it is today... But the IBM PC/XT wasn't exactly what I'd call open. Yes, there were a lot of clones, but cloning such a simple design was very simple (it wasn't exactly a groundbreaking design) and they had to reverse engineer the BIOS to make their own. But yes, it was open in the sense that everyone could easily make their own ISA expansion cards and such (good times)
You're absolutely correct. That's what I meant (3rd party hardware vendors of add-ins, not entire PC clones, not yet). I was also alluding to the software end where Microsoft literally specialized in marketing all the computer programming languages and really jump started the independent software industry, in fact they created it (and now want to control it). On the hardware end obviously the BIOS was still secret at first (and still being developed really, PC > XT > AT) but it didn't last long. Once AMI or Phoenix (can't remember) made it modular and available the market became 100% open. IBM certainly did intend, at first, for everyone to communicate with their
BIOS through all the published routines but this was short-lived thankfully. At least IBM did provide thorough manuals and 'Technical Specifications' for everything they sold. I had access to cabinets full of them, everything from Printers and expansion cards to all their DOS releases and even the BIOS. As you say, "good times"
. One big difference today IMHO is with our toxic, litigious atmosphere that has evolved to the point where an invention is now considered a monopoly for an arbitrary period of time. I cannot imagine how Compaq or whoever first clean roomed the BIOS could do something similar today.
One huge lesson that Microsoft somehow failed to learn serves as a really great analogy to today ... IBM reverted from allowing independence for their nimble PC division to it's old lumbering behemoth self and changed track with the move back to proprietary technology, most memorable in the MCA line of PS/2 computers (all pretty good though) which the rest of the industry had a fit over. I remember the battle lines being drawn just like today with many media outlets cheering them on ('the death of the clone?') while others cheered for the independents to prevail ("revenge of the clones?"). Deja Vu anyone?
I guess am thinking more from a purist point of view these days. I would prefer if Microsoft had either offered a separate Metro Edition
or better yet, an MCE
-like add-on that runs within the Operating System, windowed or full-screen if the person voluntarily chooses
.. Even Stevie Wonder can see that Metro
is a simple evolution of the Xbox Dashboard of which MCE appears to be another derivative. MCE was the right path because it did not impact anyone that chose to ignore it. The reason they will not do the former, a separate Metro Edition
, is because it would most certainly crash and burn on its own, or at best simply fill a niche market like many other Windows derivatives. In short, by attaching it to the entire Windows base they are trying to make it 'Too Big To Fail'
, (a political term here in the States used to rationalize saving or bailing out something at all costs regardless of common sense). That decision, to radically change mainstream Windows itself is the one that must have caused a holy war in Redmond because rather than isolating the potential damage from a fail they chose to spread it to the whole Microsoft brand. At least I hope it was internally controversial, because if it wasn't and there are only children left in the ranks, well, we will probably soon find out if Microsoft itself is 'Too Big To Fail'
Microsoft Windows 8 : Listen to our Fanboys! The desktop is still there! We didn't change a thing. ( okay, maybe just a few )
Edited by CharlotteTheHarlot, 26 July 2012 - 10:09 PM.