Intel Working on Standardized Thunderbolt Docking System for PCs

[divinox]

Numerous videos show that running a non-Metro app, such as Windows Explorer, from Metro takes you to classic Windows. A swipe gesture takes you from Metro to classic Desktop. It's plainly [yet] another layer over the Windows 7 GUI, which itself is a layer over the classic Windows GUI.

First, there is a "Metro Explorer". Second, not even in x86 is it a layer on top of the desktop UI. Its best described as two separate apps, loaded when called upon. Lastly, fact of the matter is it is yet unknown if ARM-W8 will even sport the desktop UI at all (i certainly hope so, but you never know).

Addendum: Not only is there a "Metro Explorer". Rumors have it, ARM-tablets will not run anything but Metro apps at all. To reuse your line of thought: without "non-Metro apps", there is nothing that "takes you to classic Windows". (Which doesn't make classic windows useless, but certainly "unnecessary").

 

[SPUY767]

Did i get this straight: Microsoft is a "back of dicks" for doings things that makes it harder to run windows on Apple computers... and Apple are what exactly :roll eyes:

Apple makes no claim of compatibility. And what I said was, that they did something that had an adverse effect on their users in a failed attempt to shield the OEMs who pay alms to the altar of Windows.

 

[PlipPlop]

Less FailBolt news please.

 

[divinox]

Apple makes no claim of compatibility. And what I said was, that they did something that had an adverse effect on their users in a failed attempt to shield the OEMs who pay alms to the altar of Windows.

And Microsoft makes claims of compatibility with Mac computers?

That said, it seems like your claim was wrong. Or at least, other posters would have me believe that.

It literally takes 10 seconds top to find nullify your claim. UEFI is supported since Vista SP1 64-bit and Windows 7 64-bit. The reason why UEFI for 32-bit was not supported was because motherboard vendors were not interested in writing the 32-bit firmware and NOT because they wanted to prevent Windows from being installed on a Mac.

That claim is absurd considering that Microsoft sells software not hardware. If anything, Microsoft wants all of its Windows on a Mac if it can. Microsoft doesn't sell a PC; it sells licenses regardless of the computer or laptop maker. Any licenses it sells is revenue.

 

[knightlie]

First, there is a "Metro Explorer". Second, not even in x86 is it a layer on top of the desktop UI. Its best described as two separate apps, loaded when called upon. Lastly, fact of the matter is it is yet unknown if ARM-W8 will even sport the desktop UI at all (i certainly hope so, but you never know).

Addendum: Not only is there a "Metro Explorer". Rumors have it, ARM-tablets will not run anything but Metro apps at all. To reuse your line of thought: without "non-Metro apps", there is nothing that "takes you to classic Windows". (Which doesn't make classic windows useless, but certainly "unnecessary").

Sounds like a complete mess.

 

[divinox]

Sounds like a complete mess.

How so? Assuming they opt for the split route you either have "springboard", or you have "springboard+desktop" (Cf. Lion). The OS knows what you have, and installs the correct version of the application for you. If the application isn't available, its no bigger of a mess than trying to install a Windows application on Mac. Further, ARM-versions will rely only on the App store. In said store they will never see an App that isn't made for their OS. So once again, how so? Where exactly is this mess you are talking about? As far as i can tell, the end user is shielded perfectly well from the underlying complexity, just like it should be.

If apple did this you'd sing praise all day long. Now they didn't, so all of a sudden you have to bitch. Or is it simple that you were wrong, and now have to come up with some lame come-back to hide that very obvious fact?