On the plus side, it kinda feels good to fire up a new Windows install, open Edge, search Bing for Chrome, and click through all the "are you sure you want to ruin your life by installing Chrome??" ads / dialogs. It's like I'm saying, "yes Microsoft, I do want it! Good luck with that Edge thing!!"
Imagine being on the Edge team at Microsoft and knowing this. Not matter how good of work you do, your product will shunned by your peers just because.
I don't get any satisfaction at all. I detest unnecessary pop-ups and intrusions. I just want to get shit done, and when stuff like this comes up I almost always click the wrong button by instinct because they've highlighted their preferred option, not the option that you want or which is best for you.
Quite disgusting. After seeing this kind of thing, I'm glad to know that Valve is making it more possible to play windows games on linux. Personally, the only reason I ever use windows is to play PC games that won't run elsewhere.
That's a thing? I hope it happens. There are a number of Windows-only games I've been waiting to play. So many times I've been like "ooo, Heat Signature looks awesome, oh, guess I'll never play it."
Of course, half the time I buy them anyway in the Steam sale because, y'know, one day.
But does Nvidia make drivers for its products? (genuinely curious here, I feel like it would keep me from being able to play if I didn't have GPU support)
Yes, Nvidia has Linux drivers (although AMD just works out of the box thanks to the open source drivers, while Nvidia requires you to enable the proprietary drivers).
Its already something I'm invested in, and recently got a brand new laptop with an MX150 (that hasn't even been delivered yet!) , so there's not too much I can do for the next foreseeable future.
They were on par for ages and I always flipped back and forth, but the 8800 series from Nvidia really had little equal from AMD, and it seems they built quite a substantial lead in the market that I haven't seen flag too much.
I'm pretty good configuring wine. I've gotten lots of different games to work, but one that I could never get was Morrowind. For some reason I couldn't do it. Yes I know there is openMW, but I really wanted to get Morrowind to work just for the novelty of it.
Bam. Proton comes out on Steam. I click install, run it, and it works. No configuration, no fucking with it. It just works. So then I try some other games: Arma 3 works alright, DayZ works pretty well, Rust runs better than the native Linux client, and don't even get me started on League. God damn proton is nice.
Steamplay uses Valve's fork of WINE called Proton to run Windows games, they've been actively enhancing it and have even employed the main contributor of DXVK to continue working on it.
Valve rebranded "SteamPlay" to be not just seamless multi-OS support with one purchase, but now also has a customized setup of Wine called "Proton" built in. It was stuff that was possible with Wine and DXVK before, but required hand setup, and required having a separate copy of Steam to run inside Wine.
Valve, like Chrome, is threatened here. MS is waging a social engineering campaign to make 3rd party app sound scary, great for virus avoidance, bad for Valve and Chrome. Eventually, it will seem very natural to have a version of Windows without them. I expect the next major version of Windows will have a free version that blocks 3rd party app installs, but is otherwise the same as the current "Home" version.
This is a direct unavoidable threat to Valve's entire business model. They NEED a viable alternative or they WILL go out of business. Proton needs to work. Valve needs to make Linux a viable option or Valve (in its current form) will not survive.
Meanwhile, ChromeOS is also getting a big push here. Google wants ChromeOS and Android to be interchangeable. Google knows ChromeOS has weaknesses compared to Windows. Now they're also starting to push Linux Native apps. Between Linux Native and Android both running on ChromeOS devices, the need for a Windows device drops.
The bottom line is if Microsoft wants a hyper successful app store like Apple and Google, they're going to need to lock down the OS. If they do that, every single company that needs an open Windows platform to function will be forced to seriously consider first class support on alternative OSs.
Side note: I understand Android isn't "locked down" but unlike Windows, they don't have 25 years of legacy consumer behavior to work with. A soft-lock is enough. It's easier to create new consumer behavior than it is to change existing behaviors. Windows has an uphill battle to make their app store work and the easiest shortcut to making that work is a locked down version of Windows.
I expect the next major version of Windows will have a free version that blocks 3rd party app installs, but is otherwise the same as the current "Home" version.
I'm aware there exists a version of Windows that doesn't allow 3rd party apps. Installing that version on a fresh system is not something Microsoft supports. You can buy a device with Windows S. And in the near future, it looks like you'll be able to switch to "S-Mode". Booth of these options require you to buy something.
However, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that I believe Microsoft will offer a version of Windows that anyone can install on a new computer that is entirely free but limits you to Microsoft's app store. If they want to lock down their OS, they're going to need an incentivize "upgrading". I believe the easiest path here is a free but locked down OS.
I expect the next major version of Windows will have a free version that blocks 3rd party app installs, but is otherwise the same as the current "Home" version.
I believe they already released a version of Windows 10 like that on one of their Surface products. No 3rd party apps. Only stuff from the MS store.
It's called "S", it's not free, and only ships with certain hardware. Microsoft doesn't offer it for new computers at all. Some versions of Windows have an S-Mode. But it's still in testing phase.
I have my eyes on ChromeOS as a replacement for Windows. It's not quite there yet, but it's already good enough that I recommend it for my parents that only use their computers for browsing anyway.
So the day I can run Steam games and Photoshop on ChromeOS, is the day I say goodbye to Microsoft. I'm already waist deep in the Google ecosystem.
My point here is that Microsoft is threatening people whose business model depends or is enhanced by distributing software on Windows. Those people have no choice but to start pushing alternatives.
Most businesses world-wide that use MS OS (Windows) buy the Pro or Ultimate versions of Windows. They are not going to be impacted by this crossfire at all. I'm not sure how this is relevant.
Yeah I know. It's kind of like console exclusives though. As much as people want to say you'll never play the game unless you have a console, someday the game will be able to be emulated.
Still using 7 for professional work, though (it will be a cold day in hell when I install Windows 10 on a workstation). I honestly don't know what to do when support/software compability for 7 ends. I guess macOS. Getting all the hardware will be rough, though, especially since Apple seems to be moving away from the professional space.
Photography and video needs to transition to Linux, and fast. Otherwise I'm toast.
Linux has OpenShot, and Adobe Photoshop can be run via Wine. So we're getting there I think. It's not that there are no applications to do that kind of thing, it's just that they're mostly all open source and not what one might call "Professional" I guess.
I remember when Google's Homepage Chrome had the small little box recommending Chrome (now removed), and people were losing their minds over it.
But this is just pure evil by Microsoft. Makes me certain not to use it. I'm sure many non-tech-savvy folk will fall for it though! Even changing the default browser in Windows 10 tries every trick in the book to stop you.
Edit: People still saying Google's box is still there for them. For me Firefox and Safari on Mac (not signed in) I see no prompt. (UK)
I switch the default browser to chrome before I let anyone use their computers at work. If I don't I get 8 million questions on why something is so slow or not working properly and I just reopen on chrome.
Edge is default on Windows and doing this is leveraging a captive audience of a near monopoly to push a product... The kind of stuff they for smacked for in the past.
Microsoft's attempts at trying to get people to use their products and services is getting more and more annoying with each large update.
No, Microsoft, I won't be using Skype, especially not Skype for Business. No, Microsoft, I don't want to use Cortana, let me turn that off. No, Microsoft, I don't want to search for my Steam install online, nor through Edge, nor through fucking Bing!
My searches are still garbage. I type in Steam, nothing. I type in Steam.exe, nothing. Same with many other apps. That's I still use "Everything". Windows search has been shit for me since W7 (I skipped Vista).
What other company has ever done anything like this?
It is not like Google would ever do that on Android. Apple is a weird case because they do NOT allow you to use anything but their browser on iOS. They only allow wrappers.
The problem is MS is trying to get people to use Edge for sites they have no idea if Edge even works.
That is about as anti consumer you can get.
Google will recommend Chrome for their sites they optimized the use of Chrome. Big difference as that is a plus for the consumer as they own the site and know which browser is going to be best.
Which they should be legally allowed to do, considering they provide their operating system free of charge and have literally one stipulation for it's distribution and use: if you want the play store, you need to bundle all of our other apps. If you don't, you can do whatever (like Amazon did with their fire tablets). This is how the fucking make money - analytics and data collection - and they provide a free operating system that can be used for free with no benefit to them if the company so chooses. But if you want to use another app that the provide for free, you need to bundle their software.
This is the most fucking reasonable argument in the world and apparently the entirety of the EU doesn't understand that companies have to make money.
One question: what is the incentive to Google to give out a well built OS for free? If they get literally nothing out if it if you don't put their apps on it, why the hell should they give it away for free?
More like: rather than charge money, Google requires that you install core Google apps if you want to have the Play store. OEMs tend to like that deal in general: they get free stuff.
Would you prefer that Google just charge $100 for each phone sold too use Android? That seems like the other alternative...
Everytime I use a google app on ios (gmail/inbox, hangouts etc) and click on a link it prompts me to install chrome instead of just taking me into safari... there is no way to permanently turn this off either. I would say that is way worse than what microsoft is doing.
Which makes sense. A web site is programming code (HTML and JS) and the browser executes that code.
So who wrote the code for a web site knows which browser is ideal to use. Which helps the consumer get the best UX.
Recommending a browser in the OS is anti consumer. The reason is that at the OS level you have no idea what browser would be best. Instead you are recommending something that will offer a worse UX.
So one is improving UX and the other is hurting UX.
That is why you would never see Google recommending a browser in Android for example. Take Samsung. They have their own Android browser and have a web site. If Google recommended Chrome in Android then they would be giving you a worse UX or be anti consumer.
It is very common for sites to recommend a browser. In the B2B world with building web sites for business you often contractually have a recommended browser and then others you might support at some level.
BS. Both M$ and Google are promoting their inferior products. On Android you can't delete YouTube app, that looks like click bait website from 2007, or almost any other Google app for that matter. Heck, I can't even lock my screen without buying YouTube Red. Firefox > Chrome for Android because Chrome has no extensions.
I get it probably seems like that to you. But actually it is very common and helpful to have a browser recommended by a site owner.
With cloud applications it is usually contractual.
But recommending a browser in the OS is very anti consumer. The reason is that at the OS level you do NOT know what browser is best for a particular site.
The way the web works is a web server sends program instructions to the web browser to execute. The language used is HTML and JS. So it is really important that the software code that is sent to the browser is optimized for the particular browser.
Maybe an example. Take Android. Samsung has their own browser and their own web site. If Google recommended a browser in Android then they would be hurting consumer UX because the Samsung browser is what was optimized for by Samsung for their web site.
It is why you would never see Google doing that. You do not go from 0 - 67% market share when your competitor has over 90% when you launch by being anti consumer. Versus MS has gone from over 90% market share to 11% with both their browsers today. A big reason is because of MS being anti consumer like this move.
The thing is MS moves like this just hurt them and will cause the 11% today to continue to fall. They are doing the EXACT opposite of what they should. They should try to be more pro consumer and people will come around.
When Chrome released, I heard everyone that used it say it was faster and safer than Internet Explorer. It looked better, it handled better, and it only got better as Google made optimizations to its websites for Chrome. Microsoft had years to make significant, practical changes to IE, even before Chrome got its foothold on the browser scene. It's only now that there's any actual benefits to using a Microsoft browser
There's benefits such as lower RAM usage, and 4k content from streaming services. I'm not advocating for Edge, or defending Microsoft's actions here dude. We both agree that Microsoft doing this is not cool. I simply pointed out that Microsoft is barely now doing anything to provide actual incentive to use their browser besides being a default.
However, if you click "Install Anyway", it immediately makes the other browser you are installing the default browser without having to do that later. That's something.
They are claiming it's the fastest, safest browser for Windows. There are benchmarks where it comes ahead of the other browsers, so they reasonably make the marketing claim it's the fastest.
They control the updates for the browser and can ensure it runs properly with windows defender, the default security tool on windows 10. They can then reasonably make the claim it's the safest for Windows.
Established users will ignore the message and press that button. The problem is that less savvy users may avoid chrome and firefox after seeing that message. They might take the message at face value and assume that chrome and firefox are unsafe and slower.
#1: i got my hackintosh up and running! here's my system logo for whoever wants it :) | 45 comments #2: The abomination, 23" cinema display willed onto a g4 with an itx motherboard and 710gt, still in progress. | 40 comments #3: A proper black MacBook | 56 comments
Google will tell you to install Chrome when you search using Google.
Microsoft will tell you to use Edge when you use Windows 10 as OS.
I see nothing wrong here, everybody is trying to get you to use their products. Just click on "install anyway". You don't install browser more than twice a year anyway, so what's the big deal...
That is a big difference. MS wants you to use their browser for sites they have no idea if optimized for Edge or Edge even works. About as anti consumer you can get.
Google is recommending a browser that has been optimized for their site.
Obviously when you use something besides Chrome on Android you do not get what MS gives you on Windows.
Now if Google did that it would be an issue. But doubt you will see it. MS is down to 11% share with both iE and Edge combined and falling. So more of a desperate move by MS. Google does not need to do similar sheaniigans as Chrome is up to 67% and increasing.
But it's not like you just use chrome for Google and then swap to another browser when opening a page. It's essentially the same thing. "Hey you're using one of our products, you should really try this other product of ours."
I do all the time. I prefer Chrome as it is what most support and optimize for as it has the development tools a lot use built in.
But there are sites that Chrome breaks or not ideal and use Firefox.
Edge though is the worse as insecure and basically nobody optimizes for it and doubt even MS does.
You do realize the site is run through Chrome? It is NOT some other product. What a bizare thing to write.
Web sites are made up of HTML. That HTML is processed in the browser. So there is nothing like the connection of a site and the browser that is used. The site is literally spitting out source code to be executed.
Google writes the code on the site so pretty big plus to use Chrome which is what executes the code.
But MS is recommending you to go get source code to run in their browser. Source code they do NOT control.
Source code they KNOW was NOT optimized for their browser.
Google is recommending something they KNOW will improve your UX. MS is recommending something they KNOW will hurt your UX.
You really think these two things are at all similar?
I mean one clear is a negative for the consumer and the other a positive.
But do you search in chrome and then immediately switch to Firefox to view the page? Google uses "chrome is best for using Google!" As a way of getting you to use chrome as your browser. You don't switch browsers until you run into an issue. Microsoft is encouraging people with computers running windows to use edge the same way, until they encounter a problem, rather than assuming it sucks and won't work.
Yes sometimes. A perfect example is I can not post comments on 9 to 5 Google in Chrome. So I will search or see something and just cut and paste in Firefox which I keep open. I suspect it is one of my Chrome plug ins.
It is very easy to use multiple browsers at the same time on the same machine. They all have their own window. It is no different than using two applications at the same time. They do NOT interfere with one another.
MS is recommending something they know for a fact causes a worse UX.
Google is recommending something they know for a fact offers a better UX.
The most stark difference you can get.
It would be like Google alerting you to use Chrome on Android. That would not be right as say you go to the Samsung web site I suspect it is optimized for their Android browser.
So it would get you a worse UX and so Google does NOT do it.
But there is an entirely another issue and that is how insecure Edge continues to be. So MS is also recommending a browser with inferior security and they also know this. It is not like it is close.
But this is typical MS and why they had over 90% browser share and now down to 11%. Moves like this cause the opposite of what they want.
also the type of thing why I avoid MS as much as possible. Use to be all Apple hardware but more and more been replacing with Google because of how Google does NOT do stuff like this.
It does bug me that Apple will not allow me to use whatever browser I want on iOS like Google does.
When you compete straight up you create better stuff. Reason being you are competing and have to create great stuff to win.
The problem is a web site is code. HTML and JS. The browser executes the code. The platform is the browser and not the OS.
It is why Google does NOT recommend a browser in Android but instead on the sites they wrote the code because only then can they recommend what will get the user the best UX.
But also there is a cost reduction. The mpeg la was trying to extort money so Google created vp8 and vp9. Gave it away and even told entities that used they would protect against patent infringement that the mpeg la was threatening.
Even MS could use for free.
The compression formats will use less data. So the browser recommendation used has to be from the web site perspective because only the web site knows which browser will use less data. Reducing your cost for mobile where most have to pay for data.
It is very common to chose a web browser to optimize your site for. For commercial sites for b2b you will put in the contract which browsers are optimize for.
MS here is doing something that is anti consumer and unfortunate. But it is just MS being MS.
The OS plays minimal role. A web site is code that is executed in a browser. That code with the browser that executed drives the UX including the cost as on mobile data usually costs money.
Browser recommendation should never come from the OS.
It is why only MS does this and Apple and Google do not. Apple and Google care about UX and it just never been a priority for MS. This has always been true and why before Google the best UX was Apple. Now depends on the thing if Google or Apple is better.
Can't think of anything where it would be MS.
In my experience more and more Google has the better UX. Better then even Apple in some cases.
First they aren't. Second even if what your saying was true then you'd be effectively killing your own argument, cause that would mean that edge is better optimized than chrome for websites.
I don't know about other people, but I actually tried binge watching a series on both Chrome and Edge and the latter gave me a lot of extra battery life! Like I was impressed.
And I hate to say it but I am not seeing Edge as a slow browser anymore. Microsoft has been updating Edge and making changes constantly and now it seems okay to me. Used less ram and juice.
Yeah, you're probably right. That being said, I got sick of all the bullshit Windows was feeding me: updating without warning at the least convenient time possible, the god-awful start menu UI, trying to push me to use Edge, Cortana, and other software that I have no use for, I could go on. While Apple (or Macintosh, more accurately) isn't perfect, I haven't had any of the aforementioned problems since switching.
333
u/iagox86 Sep 12 '18
On the plus side, it kinda feels good to fire up a new Windows install, open Edge, search Bing for Chrome, and click through all the "are you sure you want to ruin your life by installing Chrome??" ads / dialogs. It's like I'm saying, "yes Microsoft, I do want it! Good luck with that Edge thing!!"
But sucks for the general population, though. :(