Take that: Rafael Rivera easily certifies Minecraft for Windows 8

Yesterday Notch, the creator of popular indie game Minecraft, slammed Microsoft again for Windows 8, saying he wouldn't certify the app for Windows 8 and mentioned he hopes consumers won't adopt the operating system. Bring in Rafael Rivera, a "guy that knows -a lot- about Windows", who was understandably sick of developers claiming that Windows 8 is a walled garden, and that certifying apps for Windows 8 "ruins the PC as an open platform".

As Rivera explains on his blog Within Windows, Microsoft was not asking Mojang (Notch's company that makes Minecraft) to turn his popular game into a Windows Store App - namely, an app that runs in the Modern UI of Windows 8 and can only be distributed by the Windows Store. Instead, they were offering to help push Minecraft through the Desktop App Certification process, which does not restrict the app to just the Windows Store.

The idea of the Desktop App Certification process is to ensure the app adheres to some basic best practices for Windows apps. Rivera ran Minecraft through a mock certification test, and found that it passed with warnings; he also discovered that these warnings can be rectified in a few simple steps.

While Rivera's blog post goes into more technical detail, basically Notch needs to make a few simple changes: compile Minecraft with a few more security features enabled, add a trivial fix to say Minecraft doesn't need any special User Account Control access, digitally sign Minecraft.exe, and allow the app to be installed to Program Files through a slight installer change. According to Rivera, Minecraft passes every other test.

To make it even more embarrassing for Notch, Rivera says he made some tweaks that took just four hours and Minecraft passed certification.

This means that in no time at all, Mojang and Notch could easily certify Minecraft, allowing him to submit it to the Windows Store which has huge worldwide exposure. He doesn't have to submit the app, and he's not forced to turn Minecraft into a Windows Store-only application, but it makes the desktop Minecraft app a better, more secure program in the end.

So in the end, certifying Minecraft for Windows 8 will not force the game into a walled garden, and it won't "ruin the PC as an open platform"; and also by not certifying the app it will still work on Windows 8. Microsoft was just trying to help, and Notch decided to go and slam Windows 8 rather than spend a few hours improving his own app.

Source: Within Windows

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Other iOS map apps surge in wake of Apple's apology

Next Story

Motorola can't keep Microsoft products out of Germany

168 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Just because Microsoft asks developers to change there code to adhere to security requirements to make the PC systems better guard against malware and the likes, this constitutes a total bashing of Windows 8 and Microsoft?

we all know Windows 8 is not closed, because even if developers do not make the security changes there code will still run, but the OS will warn the user that the program has not been certified and it may not function correctly.

Sounds more like the developers don't want their customers to know they write crappy code an/or are too lazy to spend a little time to fix it.

Which tells me if a developer complains about making security changes to there program, then:
A. They don't know how to fix/do it.
B. They have adware/spyware/malware in their code and want to hide that fact.
C. Are just really lazy.

Either choice, you don't want to install anything they write.

Any respectable developer will not have a problem with this.

Here is a point that many I think are missing including Rafeal Rivera, that affects Notch's ability to get Minecraft certified. To use any of the Minecraft mods that the community has made, it requires the user to manually edit the executable file. There is no in-game way of applying mods. To change that I would assume isn't a 4 hour fix.

Condere said,
Here is a point that many I think are missing including Rafeal Rivera, that affects Notch's ability to get Minecraft certified. To use any of the Minecraft mods that the community has made, it requires the user to manually edit the executable file. There is no in-game way of applying mods. To change that I would assume isn't a 4 hour fix.

You have to edit the .jar file. Which is not part of the certification as only the .exe is.
Minecraft's exe does basically nothing. Its even unable to detect 64bit java (on Win8 at least) and fires it up in 32bit(which wasnt even installed at first -.-). Have to use MultiMC to have it running in 64bit.

Shadowzz said,

You have to edit the .jar file. Which is not part of the certification as only the .exe is.
Minecraft's exe does basically nothing. Its even unable to detect 64bit java (on Win8 at least) and fires it up in 32bit(which wasnt even installed at first -.-). Have to use MultiMC to have it running in 64bit.

I'll smack my head a couple of times... Been sitting here trying to figure out what Notch's real beef is, that I confused myself. Thanks for correcting me.

To make it even more embarrassing for Notch, Rivera says he made some tweaks that took just four hours and Minecraft passed certification.

You don't get it, right? Notch just doesn't WANT to certify Minecraft.

ichi said,
You don't get it, right? Notch just doesn't WANT to certify Minecraft.

That's fine and all, a lot of developers don't bother getting their software certified. But they typically don't go out of their way to get in on the "me too" bandwagon with the "Windows 8 is going to kill software" nonsense too.

This guy is hard. He should make it a live bootable game so people don't even NEED an operating system to play it. I honesty thought that games would be at that point by now, just like an xbox or something. Nope. Still need an OS.

srbeen said,
This guy is hard. He should make it a live bootable game so people don't even NEED an operating system to play it. I honesty thought that games would be at that point by now, just like an xbox or something. Nope. Still need an OS.

Idiot even the Xbox has an underlying OS or does your xbox have nothing on the screen when you turn it on in that case I'd say it wasn't working then

Athlonite said,

Idiot even the Xbox has an underlying OS or does your xbox have nothing on the screen when you turn it on in that case I'd say it wasn't working then

sorry my example don't suit you. I'm almost certain you can't be that much of a moron to not know what I meant.. Then again with those english skills its possible you are.

Athlonite said,

Idiot even the Xbox has an underlying OS or does your xbox have nothing on the screen when you turn it on in that case I'd say it wasn't working then


Im quite sure he meant that the game shouldnt be so system independent on modern systems with the (almost) universal API's and such. (Which is where Win8 comes in, it'll actually be universal among a large variety of devices.)

So he made a simple game and he can't even make it follow UAC rules correctly? How hard is it today to make an app adhere to UAC rules and not require elevation...

HawkMan said,
So he made a simple game and he can't even make it follow UAC rules correctly? How hard is it today to make an app adhere to UAC rules and not require elevation...

This... and it's very annoying.

You all are missing the point.

Notch may be a douche, a fat ass and only a few notches from crazy (good personality traits combination for a mad scientist). But he is a marketing genius!

He is getting a lot of press, a lot of buzz for his game by fabricating controversy where the is absolutely none.

This is just a marketing ploy.

I love how not only do all the Windows 8 fanboys completely manage to miss the point, but they then go and fabricate their own unrelated issue and attack that instead.

The concerns are really quite simple. You have one half of an (in theory) Desktop OS which is an entirely walled garden, the other half has been referred to as little more than a unique "App" within the first half.

So answer me this. If the Metro UI is all that the fanboys claim it to be, then it's only a matter of time until Microsoft kill the desktop just like they killed the start menu. Regardless of if they do it in 9, 10 or 11. Are you really so naive to trust a company with a history like MSFT to not leap on this opportunity to take supreme control of the Windows platform?

You might be, I'm not. And seemingly neither is Notch for that matter.

Athernar said,
I love how not only do all the Windows 8 fanboys completely manage to miss the point, but they then go and fabricate their own unrelated issue and attack that instead.

The concerns are really quite simple. You have one half of an (in theory) Desktop OS which is an entirely walled garden, the other half has been referred to as little more than a unique "App" within the first half.

So answer me this. If the Metro UI is all that the fanboys claim it to be, then it's only a matter of time until Microsoft kill the desktop just like they killed the start menu. Regardless of if they do it in 9, 10 or 11. Are you really so naive to trust a company with a history like MSFT to not leap on this opportunity to take supreme control of the Windows platform?

You might be, I'm not. And seemingly neither is Notch for that matter.

You mean like they killed DOS and Win16 support? Oh wait, the 32bit version still runs 30 year old software, and 64bit users can use HyperV for legacy software, which is why it is bundled, just like why XP Mode was bundled with Win7.

Microsoft is one of the few companies that support REALLY FREAKING OLD SOFTWARE ON REALLY FREAKING OLD PLATFORMS.

So what are you NOT getting? And I'm asking a serious question, because I'm going to answer based on my best guess of the confusion, that might help other people.

Instead of creating some hyperbolic theory that the Desktop and its frameworks and software running on the desktop is going away because Metro/Modern is 'better' is not understanding the technologies or even how things work.

The Desktop frameworks will NEVER go away, even if they run in a VM seamlessly on the Desktop, just as Win16 and DOS has done for 20 years (They run in the DOS VDM under the Win32 subsystem.)

At most the desktop UI will be merged further into the MetroUI.

But that just means that they will fit more into Metro but not change or go away and still be an option for developers. In fact even ModernUI/Metro applications can and DO USE these frameworks if they need/want.

DirectX games running in Metro, yep. Ported applications with a new Metro UI, they are already here. Even Google has Chrome running in a Metro UI while still using the same DESKTOP FRAMEWORK code.

I am guessing that you do not get that the Metro UI and the Desktop UI are just UIs, and the underlying frameworks are a different topic all together.

There are a lot of frameworks in Windows that work together and independently, with specific features and technology. Just a brief list of what is available:
Win32, WinForms, .NET/WPF, XAML, HTML5, WinRT, DirectX and this could go on and on by calling out each of the media and other frameworks like Pen/Ink support that are their own entity.

These frameworks work together most of the time, and can work separately as well, and part of this is in how Windows handles them and part is in how developers handle them and what they choose to use from the Windows Framework 'buffet'.

WinRT itself partially sits on top of Win32's API Framework and it runs in the Win32/64 subsystem. (Which is something else people confuse is the Win32 framework of APIs with the Win32/64 subsystem, when they are related but two entirely different topics.)

I know this is not easy to explain to 'users', but a freaking developer should get it, or stop writing crap code. (Yes I'm referring to Notch.)

Developers that have very little understanding of Windows is where you see horrible code written for a non-object based model OS, with Minecraft being a perfect example. Bringing over *nix concepts and replicating things Windows NT already does is bloated unoptimized code. It is also why porting from *nix to Windows almost always results in a horrible Windows Application; however, if you port from Windows to *nix the developer can fill in the holes that NT provides and offer a reasonable experience. (Going from Windows to *nix there is less chance of redundant or bloated code replication OS functionality.)


To think that Microsoft will do away with the desktop or Win32 or core frameworks, for the MILLIONS of software titles that consumers and BUSINESSES use everyday is insane.

Desktop applications and their 'frameworks' are literally Microsoft's ACE IN THE HOLE, because if they had to start without their support of legacy applications, they would lose a lot of customers that are 'locked' into Windows and even Win16 and DOS applications.

There are huge companies out there still running legacy software and crazy stuff that is too large or costly to migrate, and it is truly 10, 20, 30 years old. If Microsoft abandoned their application base, which is millions upon millions of Applications and custom Applications, they would be killing themselves

Besides, Microsoft has no need or reason to abandon desktop applications. Even if they get shoved into a new subsystem by themselves or a VM, they will still run seamlessly on Windows potentially forever.


I'm amazed how insane are people are making all of this.

BTW The Application Certification that is being talked about has been around for a long time, it was called Windows Software Logo/Certification and has increased security and feature requirements with each version of Windows released.

It is not new, but I think people are somehow conflating it with Metro/Modern App Store certification, which is something completely different.

thenetavenger said,
<snip>

Oh yes, because leaving in legacy behind-the-scenes APIs, compat layers and etc is a sensible, equivalent 1 comparison to the desktop. Try again.

But thank you, your giant wall of irrelevant, pseudo-intellectual blather goes to prove my first point on Windows 8 fanboys like you. Dodge the core issue, invent a new topic and attack that instead.

Come back when you can actually debate the point raised, rather than just shill for Microsoft.

Athernar said,

Oh yes, because leaving in legacy behind-the-scenes APIs, compat layers and etc is a sensible, equivalent 1 comparison to the desktop. Try again.

But thank you, your giant wall of irrelevant, pseudo-intellectual blather goes to prove my first point on Windows 8 fanboys like you. Dodge the core issue, invent a new topic and attack that instead.

Come back when you can actually debate the point raised, rather than just shill for Microsoft.

Oh the irony. Your post is by far the most pretentious pseudo-intellectual blather in this whole thread.

Thoro Shveiner said,

Oh the irony. Your post is by far the most pretentious pseudo-intellectual blather in this whole thread.

I'm sorry the truth is too much for you to handle.

I guess I should also thank you for further proving my point. Guess you lack the intellectual capacity to refute or debate my points.

Try again kid.

Athernar said,

I'm sorry the truth is too much for you to handle.

I guess I should also thank you for further proving my point. Guess you lack the intellectual capacity to refute or debate my points.

Try again kid.


Nah, he's right and so is netavenger. netavenger only shows the underlying reasoning why your argument is stupid, invalid and pulled out of your ass. (same as for some others in this thread).
You go offtopic and cry about MS killing off the Desktop/Win32 side of Windows. Which is to stupid for comprehension in my view considering Microsoft's track record on backwards compatibility. There is no company like it that offers this (even IBM doesnt go as far back as 30 years).
The Desktop is going nowhere. MS is not even willing to even touch the subject about removing it from Windows alltogether. They even started a entirely seperate line of Windows for this matter, WinRT. Windows 8 is just the main OS where WinRT, WinServer, Xbox and WP8 are derived from. This will be unchanged in Windows 9. And by the time MS will ever come to the subject of removing Win32/Desktop from Windows we're at least 2 decades further. And who knows? If by that time only a 0,1% of latest released windows users use the desktop. Maybe then MS will start the discussion of dropping Desktop. MS has an almost perfect track record on supporting the old with the new. At least so far as perfect track record, that no other company or organisation comes even close.

But please share your inside knowledge and information you have on this subject, because we can handle it.

Shadowzz said,

Nah, he's right and so is netavenger. netavenger only shows the underlying reasoning why your argument is stupid, invalid and pulled out of your ass. (same as for some others in this thread).
You go offtopic and cry about MS killing off the Desktop/Win32 side of Windows. Which is to stupid for comprehension in my view considering Microsoft's track record on backwards compatibility. There is no company like it that offers this (even IBM doesnt go as far back as 30 years).
The Desktop is going nowhere. MS is not even willing to even touch the subject about removing it from Windows alltogether. They even started a entirely seperate line of Windows for this matter, WinRT. Windows 8 is just the main OS where WinRT, WinServer, Xbox and WP8 are derived from. This will be unchanged in Windows 9. And by the time MS will ever come to the subject of removing Win32/Desktop from Windows we're at least 2 decades further. And who knows? If by that time only a 0,1% of latest released windows users use the desktop. Maybe then MS will start the discussion of dropping Desktop. MS has an almost perfect track record on supporting the old with the new. At least so far as perfect track record, that no other company or organisation comes even close.

But please share your inside knowledge and information you have on this subject, because we can handle it.

My argument is stupid? Hah!

And yet here you are, treating the Desktop as if it's nothing more than a behind-the-scenes API. You are utterly retarded if you think that is a sane comparison.

But please, do tell me more on how the pre-Sinofsky era's approach to application compatability is relevant here. You know, those other versions of Windows with a divided ecosystem like 8's... Oh wait.

Ezekiel Carsella said,
windows 8 is great for minecraft because of GPU enhancements etc

No matter how much OS enhancements to throw at MC, MC will still require a nuclear power plant and a whole server park to run smoothly.

Shadowzz said,

No matter how much OS enhancements to throw at MC, MC will still require a nuclear power plant and a whole server park to run smoothly.

you mean for people or the developers? i know games like those require a heck of a lot of power but i am talking for consumers

The point that seems completely lost on the writer of this article is Notch never said he couldn't submit the app, he simply didn't want to.

Javik said,
The point that seems completely lost on the writer of this article is Notch never said he couldn't submit the app, he simply didn't want to.

Pretty much what i came here to say. Also it should probably be pointed out that by digitally signing the minecraft executables he would effectively block all minecraft modding- something i expect he doesn't want to do? (assuming windows 8 blocks the execution of executables which have been tampered with).

The 120mb download size needed to bundle the java re-distributables with it (it has to be standalone) also isn't really a "feature" I'm after.

Bag said,
it should probably be pointed out that by digitally signing the minecraft executables he would effectively block all minecraft modding- something i expect he doesn't want to do? (assuming windows 8 blocks the execution of executables which have been tampered with).
Digital signing only applies to Windows executables, not the Java JARs used for modding. The Minecraft EXE is merely a convenient wrapper for launching the Minecraft JAR and contains no real functionality (you can even run Minecraft without the EXE should you want to).

Notch wouldn't need to distribute Java with Minecraft in order to be certified.

Too bad that I don't play Minecraft, so it makes no difference if the developer is dumb enough not wanting to push his product everywhere possible.

Talk about completely missing the point the Minecraft developer is making! These Microsoft shills, they are getting more dangerous by the day.

MsftGaurav said,
Talk about completely missing the point the Minecraft developer is making! These Microsoft shills, they are getting more dangerous by the day.
But Notch didn't make a point. He just ranted.

Wow, man, it's like some of you think desktop certification or any certification for Windows is new, it's not. MS certifies lots of things for Windows, from drivers and even apps. Of course it's optional and still is but what is exactly wrong with it?

I'd like to know that the desktop app at least pases a few basic things and doesn't in some whacky way screw up my system. Oh no, doom and gloom big bad MS is forcing us to certify our code! Oh the horror! No it's not! Making sure your app or game or driver doesn't crash the system is now a bad thing? It now somehow pushes MS's app store? What?

Talk about making this out to be something it isn't. Even the modern UI and WinRT aren't as limiting as people make it sound. Simple truth is, at this point, MS allows in-app purchasing. This is a huge deal and something people seem to overlook when they make their big "walled garden is evil" arguments. The simple truth is that any 3rd party dev/company like Valve, Amazon, EA and so on, can put up a free client and then through that free RT/modern client sell you their own content through their own store right to you. This notion that we're limited to only what MS wants and what MS allows into their store is flat out wrong. There will be, without a doubt, an amazon app that sells you kindle and other amazon content on your shiny new Windows RT tablet, you can bet on it.

Spot on. But logic, common sense, and facts do not apply to the idiots who support Notch. It's like with religious nuts, you just cant use logic, facts or evidence. Its the same thing here. It's how there brains work, they're just broken and it cant be fixed.

Notch - Makes a Good Game. Except the game engine. It is very hardware heavy. Another user releases mod which fixes A LOT of performance problems with Minecraft. That mod is STILL not part of the official Minecraft.

Gabe - Makes a Good Game. His Steam service is effectively turning into facebook for gamers and using as much memory as a browser with ten Facebook pages open. Steam also takes a long time to sing in (compared to less than tenth of a second for signing into anything else). Steam also sometimes does not allow you to play your own purchased application. Also Gabe's Source engine has became worse and worse with the time - its system requirements have grown heavily.

Conclusion,
Quasi-Smart *******s do not like Windows 8

ArialBlue said,
Notch - Makes a Good Game. Except the game engine. It is very hardware heavy. Another user releases mod which fixes A LOT of performance problems with Minecraft. That mod is STILL not part of the official Minecraft.

Gabe - Makes a Good Game. His Steam service is effectively turning into facebook for gamers and using as much memory as a browser with ten Facebook pages open. Steam also takes a long time to sing in (compared to less than tenth of a second for signing into anything else). Steam also sometimes does not allow you to play your own purchased application. Also Gabe's Source engine has became worse and worse with the time - its system requirements have grown heavily.

Conclusion,
Quasi-Smart *******s do not like Windows 8

Ha I don't know about you, but Chrome with 10 facebook tabs open uses twice the memory that steam does.

ArialBlue said,
Notch - Makes a Good Game. Except the game engine. It is very hardware heavy. Another user releases mod which fixes A LOT of performance problems with Minecraft. That mod is STILL not part of the official Minecraft.

Gabe - Makes a Good Game. His Steam service is effectively turning into facebook for gamers and using as much memory as a browser with ten Facebook pages open. Steam also takes a long time to sing in (compared to less than tenth of a second for signing into anything else). Steam also sometimes does not allow you to play your own purchased application. Also Gabe's Source engine has became worse and worse with the time - its system requirements have grown heavily.

Conclusion,
Quasi-Smart *******s do not like Windows 8

Massive over exageration, 10 pages in IE9 on facebook takes up approx 504Mb, Steam according to task manager takes 59Mb, so yeah maybe you meant the other way around, 10 webpages is nearly 10x more memory usage than steam.

Also what do you mean by "steam also sometimes does not allow you to play your own purchased application" strangely enough, every game I've bought off steam I'm allowed to play...

I am a developer and on behalf of all developers say that the developer of this game is an *******. Real developer doesn't care about platform. Cares about the best he could do and this guy cannot spend four hours to bring his little game to a new born platform

Dot Matrix said,
Remove the Java and then we'll talk...

This!!! and while we're at it flash can as well. Sick of both... they are both dated, bloated, and have way too many security holes.

remixedcat said,

This!!! and while we're at it flash can as well. Sick of both... they are both dated, bloated, and have way too many security holes.


Not only that but Minecraft eats more system resources then Sins of Solar Empire....
Also it cannot handle if another application starts using allot of CPU/RAM and MC just terminates with an error -.-

remixedcat said,
I think the cert. is a good idea... keeps things consistent and smooth.... who wouldn't want that?

If it was the certification alone, then sure. But supporting that also means supporting the Microsoft Store and Metro. And that's a big no.

@Leo said,

If it was the certification alone, then sure. But supporting that also means supporting the Microsoft Store and Metro. And that's a big no.

what is so bad about that? If you miss out on that you miss out on customers.... they will miss out... you can't be arrogant about that... notch is just making an ass about himself and that is just gonna **** people off that wanna play minecraft on a tablet. those numbers are increasing and anyone would be stupid to miss out on that growing sector. notch is just shooting himself in the foot and so is any other dev that thinks this way.

@Leo said,

If it was the certification alone, then sure. But supporting that also means supporting the Microsoft Store and Metro. And that's a big no.

Where did you get that from?

"I contacted Microsoft about the ordeal and they confirmed reaching out to Notch. But Microsoft did not ask for the guys to rework Minecraft into a Windows Store App or participate in any walled app gardens. (Though it's noteworthy that Mojang AB is not unfamiliar with playing in these spaces. After all, they have Xbox 360, iOS, and Android versions of Minecraft in some form on the market today.) Microsoft was simply offering assistance in pushing Minecraft through the Desktop App Certification process."

They are not asking him to put the game on the store or create a modern UI version.

Doli said,

Where did you get that from?

"I contacted Microsoft about the ordeal and they confirmed reaching out to Notch. But Microsoft did not ask for the guys to rework Minecraft into a Windows Store App or participate in any walled app gardens. (Though it's noteworthy that Mojang AB is not unfamiliar with playing in these spaces. After all, they have Xbox 360, iOS, and Android versions of Minecraft in some form on the market today.) Microsoft was simply offering assistance in pushing Minecraft through the Desktop App Certification process."

They are not asking him to put the game on the store or create a modern UI version.


No, this is not what I meant. I meant, that by supporting one part of the OS, he would be supporting the entirety of it, which he is unwilling to do.

@Leo said,

No, this is not what I meant. I meant, that by supporting one part of the OS, he would be supporting the entirety of it, which he is unwilling to do.

then he will miss out then.... plain as that....

remixedcat said,

then he will miss out then.... plain as that....


Obviously he believes that he won't miss that much. Or he is an idialist. It doesn't really matter. If more people follow, it might be a signal to Microsoft, which is probably what is hoping to do. If their model is succesful, I am sure he will break eventually and even make a metro version for RT.

@Leo said,

If it was the certification alone, then sure. But supporting that also means supporting the Microsoft Store and Metro. And that's a big no.

Waaaaa. There's nothing wrong with the store or Metro.

Dot Matrix said,

Waaaaa. There's nothing wrong with the store or Metro.

"They're not even within 100 miles of Baghdad."

@Leo said,

"There are no americans in baghdad"

The store provides a central point for consumers to go download, it's funny you complain about it because Microsoft has often been criticized over not having one.

Linux distros have repositories, iOS has a Store, Mac OS X has a store, and Google also has a store, yet you make no mention of any of these companies or services. All of a sudden Microsoft having one is bad?

Dot Matrix said,

The store provides a central point for consumers to go download, it's funny you complain about it because Microsoft has often been criticized over not having one.

Linux distros have repositories, iOS has a Store, Mac OS X has a store, and Google also has a store, yet you make no mention of any of these companies or services. All of a sudden Microsoft having one is bad?


I don't mind there being a store. It bothers me that I can only have Metro apps from that particular store. Why?
Give me excuses #121, #45, #5623 this time, please.

@Leo said,

If it was the certification alone, then sure. But supporting that also means supporting the Microsoft Store and Metro. And that's a big no.

How does supporting a certification process for Desktop apps (especially one that has been around for many years) mean you also support the Store and Metro? The two have nothing at all to do with each other.

@Leo said,

I don't mind there being a store. It bothers me that I can only have Metro apps from that particular store. Why?
Give me excuses #121, #45, #5623 this time, please.

Why should there be an excuse ? After all, Microsoft is doing exactly what all other competitors are doing in the mobile space, providing a walled garden. Yet for us desktop users, we continue to enjoy the free unwalled desktop, were all of these millions of win32 applications continue to run and these can be loaded any way we like. Choice, it sure is confusing for some people...

@Leo said,

I don't mind there being a store. It bothers me that I can only have Metro apps from that particular store. Why?
Give me excuses #121, #45, #5623 this time, please.

You do know desktop apps can be included in the store. Office is in there, for example.

@Leo said,

I don't mind there being a store. It bothers me that I can only have Metro apps from that particular store. Why?
Give me excuses #121, #45, #5623 this time, please.

Leo is the only one that makes any sense in this thread. I totally agree with him. People seem to hate it when someone stands up against their beloved Microsoft, and actually takes a stand on an issue. It has nothing to do with spending $100 on certification, it's that they are all heading to a closed environment. If you all can't see that, then I feel sorry for you. You can't make fun of the iPeople anymore, because from what most of what I've seen puts you in the same league. "Microsoft can do no wrong. I will do whatever they tell me to without question."

farmeunit said,

Leo is the only one that makes any sense in this thread. I totally agree with him. People seem to hate it when someone stands up against their beloved Microsoft, and actually takes a stand on an issue. It has nothing to do with spending $100 on certification, it's that they are all heading to a closed environment. If you all can't see that, then I feel sorry for you. You can't make fun of the iPeople anymore, because from what most of what I've seen puts you in the same league. "Microsoft can do no wrong. I will do whatever they tell me to without question."


Nature of the beast, I guess. It is called Neowin for a reason.

sjaak327 said,

Why should there be an excuse ? After all, Microsoft is doing exactly what all other competitors are doing in the mobile space, providing a walled garden. Yet for us desktop users, we continue to enjoy the free unwalled desktop, were all of these millions of win32 applications continue to run and these can be loaded any way we like. Choice, it sure is confusing for some people...


The difference being that they are forcing it on the desktop as well. All the idiots here keep mentioning 360 and iOS as competitor products, but they fail to see that these are close operating system for purpose-built devices. If you claim that Metro UI is for tablets, and thus it is for purpose-built devices, then I'd agree to some extent. But Microsoft is pushing their crap on the desktop also, and see their WinRT API as the eventual replacement for Win32, and such apps can only come from their official, locked store, even on the desktop. That's unacceptable.

remixedcat said,
I think the cert. is a good idea... keeps things consistent and smooth.... who wouldn't want that?

Additionally, it has been around for over 10 years... That is what is FREAKING insane that people don't seem to be 'understanding'...

Windows Software Certification/Logo has been around for a long time, and with each version of Windows the requirements to 'quality' for use of the Windows Logo/Certification has increased. Vista demanded more guidelines and security, with Windows 7 they changed again, and they are changing again with Windows 8.

The only thing that must be confusing people is that the naming has changed, and they are conflating it with ModernUI App certification.

I literally am awestruck by the 'rage' over something that has been around for a long time and a normal thing for Windows developers.

@Leo said,

The difference being that they are forcing it on the desktop as well. All the idiots here keep mentioning 360 and iOS as competitor products, but they fail to see that these are close operating system for purpose-built devices. If you claim that Metro UI is for tablets, and thus it is for purpose-built devices, then I'd agree to some extent. But Microsoft is pushing their crap on the desktop also, and see their WinRT API as the eventual replacement for Win32, and such apps can only come from their official, locked store, even on the desktop. That's unacceptable.

Nothing you said in this entire paragraph is true or even close to factual.

Go look up the Windows Software Logo program, it has been around for years, and to get certification, developers have had to submit their Applications to Microsoft for testing.

THERE IS NOTHING NEW for Win32/DESKTOP applications here...

If you can't grasp that the name changed but it is the same freaking process, you need to give your computer away.

This has gone BEYOND idiocy and insanity.

thenetavenger said,

This has gone BEYOND idiocy and insanity.

Seeing as you don't seem to get what I am saying and keep repeating things (serious, three comments one after the other saying the same thing) that I've never contradicted.
Keep up the trolling.
Visual C++ outputs faster and more secure binaries than ICC.

@Leo said,

Seeing as you don't seem to get what I am saying and keep repeating things (serious, three comments one after the other saying the same thing) that I've never contradicted.
Keep up the trolling.
Visual C++ outputs faster and more secure binaries than ICC.

so you're against having a quality application that meats guidelines to prevent crashing and stuff like that? You would rather have a more sloppy written application that would do more damage to your system just to "stick it to the man"???

remixedcat said,

so you're against having a quality application that meats guidelines to prevent crashing and stuff like that? You would rather have a more sloppy written application that would do more damage to your system just to "stick it to the man"???


Why arte you people putting words in my mouth? Where did I say I am against guidelines? I am against Microsoft pushing their store for metro UI, and notch seems to be against that as well, thus not submitting his app for certification for Windows 8. Are you people so lazy (or stupid), you can't even read my comments? You keep on either putting words in my mouth, claim I have no idea what is the difference between desktop cetification and metro store certification or brign the tired "360 and iOS" arguments. Desktop certification has nothing to do with metro certification, but by supporting the former, you implicitly support the latter. Notch says "I'd rather have Minecraft not run on Windows 8 at all than to play along", how hard is it to understand? He doesn't want anything to do with Windows 8.

Notch is being arrogant and putting his ego first and not the players of minecraft..... if the fans want it then he should do what the fans want.... regardless of what platform it's on.... regardless of whether he likes the store idea or not... that's one part of being a developer, sometimes you have to put your own interests aside to make your users happy.... and this is where he epically fails.... my hubby doesn't care about windows 8, yet he knew about this and thought notch was being a douchenozzle about the whole thing... he is... he's arrogant and he needs to get his head out of his buttox.


@Leo said,

Why arte you people putting words in my mouth? Where did I say I am against guidelines? I am against Microsoft pushing their store for metro UI, and notch seems to be against that as well, thus not submitting his app for certification for Windows 8. Are you people so lazy (or stupid), you can't even read my comments? You keep on either putting words in my mouth, claim I have no idea what is the difference between desktop cetification and metro store certification or brign the tired "360 and iOS" arguments. Desktop certification has nothing to do with metro certification, but by supporting the former, you implicitly support the latter. Notch says "I'd rather have Minecraft not run on Windows 8 at all than to play along", how hard is it to understand? He doesn't want anything to do with Windows 8.

remixedcat said,
Notch is being arrogant and putting his ego first and not the players of minecraft..... if the fans want it then he should do what the fans want.... regardless of what platform it's on.... regardless of whether he likes the store idea or not... that's one part of being a developer, sometimes you have to put your own interests aside to make your users happy.... and this is where he epically fails.... my hubby doesn't care about windows 8, yet he knew about this and thought notch was being a douchenozzle about the whole thing... he is... he's arrogant and he needs to get his head out of his buttox.

You response is just...
What ego are you talking about? Arrogant? Just hilarious to listen to you fanboys. Ego. He owes nothing to anyone. What fans are you speaking of? Customers. If his customers are so disappointed by his actions, then let them not buy his next game. If his customers feel somehow contractually betrayed because Minecraft is not certified by Windows 8 but still runs on it, let them file a class action suit. But get off your high horse. He owes nothing to anyone. Mojang is a place of business and his actions have direct consequences over Mojang. Seeing as Mojang is wholly owned by him, he can do whatever he damn pleases, even if all the fanboys here pop their veins out of pompous anger.

@Leo said,

Why arte you people putting words in my mouth? Where did I say I am against guidelines? I am against Microsoft pushing their store for metro UI

So, it's cool everyone else pushes their stores? Gotchya.

@Leo said,

You response is just...
What ego are you talking about? Arrogant? Just hilarious to listen to you fanboys. Ego. He owes nothing to anyone. What fans are you speaking of? Customers. If his customers are so disappointed by his actions, then let them not buy his next game. If his customers feel somehow contractually betrayed because Minecraft is not certified by Windows 8 but still runs on it, let them file a class action suit. But get off your high horse. He owes nothing to anyone. Mojang is a place of business and his actions have direct consequences over Mojang. Seeing as Mojang is wholly owned by him, he can do whatever he damn pleases, even if all the fanboys here pop their veins out of pompous anger.

It's all about his PERSONAL dislike for windows 8 and him not supporting it and the fans that will use it becuase he doesn't like it....

Dot Matrix said,

So, it's cool everyone else pushes their stores? Gotchya.


"Everyone else"
There is Apple Mac App Store. That's it. And it has problems too, like not being able to use OS notifications if an app is not downloaded from the Apple appstore. Ever heard me say that? But it's much worse here.

@Leo said,

"Everyone else"
There is Apple Mac App Store. That's it. And it has problems too, like not being able to use OS notifications if an app is not downloaded from the Apple appstore. Ever heard me say that? But it's much worse here.

Google has Play and BlackBerry has App World, Apple has itunes and app store... amazon has an appstore.... and you are perfectly fine with these? but if MS does it it's automatically bad??

remixedcat said,

Google has Play and BlackBerry has App World, Apple has itunes and app store... amazon has an appstore.... and you are perfectly fine with these? but if MS does it it's automatically bad??


Again, for purpose-built tablet or mobile devices, closed ecosystems are fine. I would rather they wouldn't be, but they are fine.
On my PC, which is not a purpose-built device, that is unacceptable. You might agree, but a lot of people do. Don't look at Neowin as your only source of people's opinion of Windows 8.

@Leo said,

Again, for purpose-built tablet or mobile devices, closed ecosystems are fine. I would rather they wouldn't be, but they are fine.
On my PC, which is not a purpose-built device, that is unacceptable. You might agree, but a lot of people do. Don't look at Neowin as your only source of people's opinion of Windows 8.

Having a store doesn't constiture a closed system. Abide by the rules, and that system will be as open as you want it to be. I for one welcome a era where "anything goes" is finally abolished. Having an "anything goes" routine is not the way to do things anymore. Too many people taking advantage of it, causing too many problems.

You still have a desktop, and an Win32 operating environment in Windows 8, so I still see no problem here.

Dot Matrix said,

Having a store doesn't constiture a closed system. Abide by the rules, and that system will be as open as you want it to be. I for one welcome a era where "anything goes" is finally abolished.


Yes, but you are a nutcase that also wants to take away context menus.

@Leo said,

Again, for purpose-built tablet or mobile devices, closed ecosystems are fine. I would rather they wouldn't be, but they are fine.
On my PC, which is not a purpose-built device, that is unacceptable. You might agree, but a lot of people do. Don't look at Neowin as your only source of people's opinion of Windows 8.

I made up my own mind on windows 8.... As a matter of fact for a looong time while I was testing it... I refused to access windows 8 threads.... so I can form my own opinion in peace....

@Leo said,

Yes, but you are a nutcase that also wants to take away context menus.

Welcome to computing 3.0. It's time to separate those who can keep up with new trends and those who are going to try and cling to old ones. Which side are you on? Change is inevitable. Time to face up to it. Stores are in. Lawlessness is out.

remixedcat said,

I made up my own mind on windows 8.... As a matter of fact for a looong time while I was testing it... I refused to access windows 8 threads.... so I can form my own opinion in peace....

I didn't mean about you forming your opinion, I meant about what people think in Windows 8 in general. The ones that do like it are a small minority, despite what the usual suspects here would want you to believe.

Dot Matrix said,

Welcome to computing 3.0. It's time to separate those who can keep up with new trends and those who are going to try and cling to old ones. Which side are you on? Change is inevitable. Time to face up to it. Stores are in. Lawlessness is out.


I am all for change. However change can go in many different directions. I do not like the change Microsoft would like to introduce. But you are too narrow-minded to see this, keep repeating your retarded mantra "either you are with us or against us" err I mean "either you support the change Microsoft is attempting or you against evolution of technology".

@Leo said,

I didn't mean about you forming your opinion, I meant about what people think in Windows 8 in general. The ones that do like it are a small minority, despite what the usual suspects here would want you to believe.

Nope... Neowin is not the only tech site out there that has users that like windows 8. Many users from other places like it.

@Leo said,

Why arte you people putting words in my mouth? Where did I say I am against guidelines? I am against Microsoft pushing their store for metro UI, and notch seems to be against that as well, thus not submitting his app for certification for Windows 8. Are you people so lazy (or stupid), you can't even read my comments? You keep on either putting words in my mouth, claim I have no idea what is the difference between desktop cetification and metro store certification or brign the tired "360 and iOS" arguments. Desktop certification has nothing to do with metro certification, but by supporting the former, you implicitly support the latter. Notch says "I'd rather have Minecraft not run on Windows 8 at all than to play along", how hard is it to understand? He doesn't want anything to do with Windows 8.

Your so full of sh*t bro, not even fun.
WHERE in gods name in this situation is MS pushing their store through the throats of anyone? They just offered help to them into getting the program certified for Windows. Which is indeed nothing new, has been around for ages (considering your crying allot about the fact that something changed, MS added a store).

Also your crying on the why the store only fully supports metro apps, you seem to imcompetent to figure out that this is for WinRT also? To make sure metro apps work on any Windows with a store. But this might be to hard for you to grasp the concept off.
These Minecraft folks have not been contacted for Metro certification at all, this hasnt even been a question at all.

I am all for change. However change can go in many different directions. I do not like the change Microsoft would like to introduce. But you are too narrow-minded to see this, keep repeating your retarded mantra "either you are with us or against us" err I mean "either you support the change Microsoft is attempting or you against evolution of technology"

You call other people narrowminded? You're trully funny mate.
MS comes with the Store, a feature MS has been critized over for the past 2 decades for lacking in their OS. They ADD it, the Desktop experience has been left virtually unchanged. They just added a new way to distribute applications within Windows. You are free to use this Windows Store or not, as are developers. If they do not want such, they can continue using their old ways, unchanged at all.
Certified or not, Minecraft runs fine on Windows 8 (as according to your choice of arguments, it wouldnt be running at all on Win8) And as a paying customer who bought Minecraft, I'd love to see the Minecraft game be certified for windows 8.

bleh, people should stop worrying about Windows 8, and the **** that comes with it. Stick with whatever makes you happy. No need to bash something for it's faults.. same concept as not making fun of a person with disabilities.

@Leo said,

As usual, the quality posts from Callaham.

His "stance" is not because of how hard it is to certify his little game. It that he doesn't want to, because he wishes not to support this model that Microsoft is attempting to introduce and have it as the only model available. Too hard to get, eh? Go write yet another "editorial" on some other lazy Windows 8 basher. Maybe Gabe Newell's turn is up?


Oh, and your posts are so quality-driven? He has an opinion, and you have yours. That doesn't take anything away from a statement's intent or quality.
Also, why does Notch freely support minecraft on on the apple's app store (which is completely closed off) and on the Xbox 360 (closed off there too), but refuses to support minecraft on Windows 8 (an os that has choices- a microsoft store to put your apps up for more exposure or you can just, as traditionally, have it as a normal desktop program)?? His stance against Windows 8 becomes a little more open to attack and critical attack.

aviator189 said,

Oh, and your posts are so quality-driven? He has an opinion, and you have yours. That doesn't take anything away from a statement's intent or quality.
Also, why does Notch freely support minecraft on on the apple's app store (which is completely closed off) and on the Xbox 360 (closed off there too), but refuses to support minecraft on Windows 8 (an os that has choices- a microsoft store to put your apps up for more exposure or you can just, as traditionally, have it as a normal desktop program)?? His stance against Windows 8 becomes a little more open to attack and critical attack.

You guys keep rehashing the same arguments over and over - that should give more legitimacy to your opinion, that's for sure.

Notch wishes not support what was once completely open and turns into a closed system because of Microsoft greed. The iOS and Xbox stores have always been closed, on purpose-built devices. iOS or Xbox are not my PC.
And before you go "hurr, Windows 8 is not closed at all", read up a little about "sideloading" of metro apps outside of the MS store. You either need an enterprise certificate to sign the app, or you have to hack the system. The fact that we are talking about hacking aka jailbreaking or "sideloading" in PC operating system should sound alarms in your head.

@Leo said,

Keep rehashing the same arguments over and over - that should give more legitimacy to your opinion, that's for sure.

Notch wishes not support what was once completely open and turns into a closed system because of Microsoft greed. The iOS and Xbox stores have always been closed, on purpose-built devices. iOS or Xbox are not my PC.
And before you go "hurr, Windows 8 is not closed at all", read up a little about "sideloading" of metro apps outside of the MS store. You either need an enterprise certificate to sign the app, or you have to hack the system. The fact that we are talking about hacking aka jailbreaking or "sideloading" in PC operating system should sound alarms in your head.


Well, then that's the developer's loss, then.
If they aren't willing to go through the certification process for more exposure on tablet devices (just the ARM tablets), then that's their loss.

And I just said that everyone has opinions. And any opinion shouldn't be attack over "quality."

@Leo said,
Notch wishes not support what was once completely open and turns into a closed system because of Microsoft greed. The iOS and Xbox stores have always been closed, on purpose-built devices. iOS or Xbox are not my PC.
And before you go "hurr, Windows 8 is not closed at all", read up a little about "sideloading" of metro apps outside of the MS store. You either need an enterprise certificate to sign the app, or you have to hack the system. The fact that we are talking about hacking aka jailbreaking or "sideloading" in PC operating system should sound alarms in your head.

Who cares about sideloading when Minecraft doesn't need a Metro tile and doesn't need to be a Metro app. The Modern UI is completely irrelevant in this situation.

Windows 8 is just as open on the DESKTOP - the market which concerns Notch and Minecraft as it's a desktop app - as it was on previous versions. Sure, with the new Modern UI the Store is the only way to go, but with the desktop it isn't "the only model available" and therefore not "the only model available" to Notch. He can distribute it however he likes.

@Leo said,

... because he wishes not to support this model that Microsoft is attempting to introduce and have it as the only model available. Too hard to get, eh?

There is NO NEW MODEL, you freaking loon.

Just reading your inane condescending ramblings makes my head hurt. You are not just lacking critical thinking, you are lacking any reasonable thinking.

While that would be sufficient to make most people smack their heads into their desk, you also add in hyperbolic facts from some alternate reality to ensure the reader feels pain.

Your nonsense is a form of brain ablation.

thenetavenger said,

There is NO NEW MODEL, you freaking loon.

Just reading your inane condescending ramblings makes my head hurt. You are not just lacking critical thinking, you are lacking any reasonable thinking.

While that would be sufficient to make most people smack their heads into their desk, you also add in hyperbolic facts from some alternate reality to ensure the reader feels pain.

Your nonsense is a form of brain ablation.


Keep up the trolling.

Scorpus said,

Who cares about sideloading when Minecraft doesn't need a Metro tile and doesn't need to be a Metro app. The Modern UI is completely irrelevant in this situation.

Windows 8 is just as open on the DESKTOP - the market which concerns Notch and Minecraft as it's a desktop app - as it was on previous versions. Sure, with the new Modern UI the Store is the only way to go, but with the desktop it isn't "the only model available" and therefore not "the only model available" to Notch. He can distribute it however he likes.


It is a symbolic wish not to support it. As is demonstrated in the Rivera blog post, technologically, there is nothing really stopping him from going through with the certification.

aviator189 said,

Lol, so you address an almost irrelevant part of my post and ignore the remaining majority of it?

Nope, I do agree that if this new model grows in popularity, it will be eventually the loss of the developer. It remains to be seen if princips will reign over finacial incentives.

@Leo said,

Nope, I do agree that if this new model grows in popularity, it will be eventually the loss of the developer. It remains to be seen if princips will reign over finacial incentives.

So, going through a certification process by which ensures more safety, security and overall smoothness is not worth the potentially great exposure your work will attain in the microsoft store?

aviator189 said,

So, going through a certification process by which ensures more safety, security and overall smoothness is not worth the potentially great exposure your work will attain in the microsoft store?

It's an ideological decision he has made. You may disagree with it, but I hope you can understand why now. He is opposed to Windows 8 in its concept.

@Leo said,

It's an ideological decision he has made. You may disagree with it, but I hope you can understand why now. He is opposed to Windows 8 in its concept.

Yup, it's just opinions, after all.
Increased exposure, stable environment, and better security sound good to me.
Besides, I really doubt the good majority of minecraft users would want to play on ARM tablets anyways, which probably can't even run minecraft anyways.

@Leo said,

As usual, the quality posts from Callaham.

His "stance" is not because of how hard it is to certify his little game. It that he doesn't want to, because he wishes not to support this model that Microsoft is attempting to introduce and have it as the only model available. Too hard to get, eh? Go write yet another "editorial" on some other lazy Windows 8 basher. Maybe Gabe Newell's turn is up?

Because certifying a desktop app with a desktop cert process is totally pushing the app store model. By the way, app certification has existed as a process on Windows for many years before Windows 8 was even close to being an idea.

@Leo said,

As usual, the quality posts from Callaham.

His "stance" is not because of how hard it is to certify his little game. It that he doesn't want to, because he wishes not to support this model that Microsoft is attempting to introduce and have it as the only model available. Too hard to get, eh? Go write yet another "editorial" on some other lazy Windows 8 basher. Maybe Gabe Newell's turn is up?

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the Windows Store model would or will be the only support way of application development on Windows. In fact all the technical evidence indicates there is another model that works, and has been working from the very first day Windows was released. This model is were all these millions of Win32 applications are developed and distributed. Microsoft will never allow this model to get side tracked, as it is this model that is responsible for not only the dominant market share Windows enjoys, but this model is also being used to develop and distribute all of the companies big money makers. All the server apps (Exchange, Lync, Sharepoint, SQL) and of course Office run and have dependencies on Win32. Even the preferred tool for application development (visual studio) continues to run on win32.

The developer is doing his paying customers a great disservice. Just because he personally does not like Windows 8, or the Windows app store model, he is effectively telling them to stuff it. Even though his application seems to be running on Windows 8, he is not willing to certify it (a program that has existed for many years), just out of spite or personal dislike. He does have a responsibility to the people that parted with their hard earned cash, and he needs to support them in running this paid application on Windows 8, in case some of his customers do see the appeal in running Windows 8 as their operating system.

I let the fact that he is happy to make money on other closed systems slide, it only makes his stance all the more weaker.

What remains is the guy being called a hypocrite and a liar, and unwilling to support paying customers, all of these qualifications are fully deserved.

Scorpus said,

Windows 8 is just as open on the DESKTOP - the market which concerns Notch and Minecraft as it's a desktop app - as it was on previous versions. Sure, with the new Modern UI the Store is the only way to go, but with the desktop it isn't "the only model available" and therefore not "the only model available" to Notch. He can distribute it however he likes.

And pray tell, what happens when Microsoft deprecates the desktop (Which is just another Metro app in their eyes) in a future release?

Oh look, his concerns suddenly became entirely justified.

Athernar said,

And pray tell, what happens when Microsoft deprecates the desktop (Which is just another Metro app in their eyes) in a future release?

Oh look, his concerns suddenly became entirely justified.

I think the point is that MS likes backwards-compatibility so much, that they won't do that for a long time (if ever).

Athernar said,
And pray tell, what happens when Microsoft deprecates the desktop (Which is just another Metro app in their eyes) in a future release?

Not going to happen. Why on earth would you assume that they would throw away compatibility with millions of applications and probably lose millions of customers in the process? You think Microsoft made as much money as they have by being stupid? Sure, they've made some silly design decisions, won't argue that, but that's jut absurd. Reminds me of the whining that came around when dotNET first showed up.. "zomg Win32 applications are being killed off!" Right.

@Leo said,

Keep up the trolling.

Says the person who just admitted he "attacks" other people's opinions. Why can't you just disagree with them like a normal person?

TCLN Ryster said,

Says the person who just admitted he "attacks" other people's opinions. Why can't you just disagree with them like a normal person?


Tell me, how does a "normal person" disagree? Argue his own, no? Guess what I have been doing on this page?

@Leo said,

Nope, I do agree that if this new model grows in popularity, it will be eventually the loss of the developer. It remains to be seen if princips will reign over finacial incentives.

Seriously, you are still rambling?

What F--ing model are you talking about?

This is about a DESKTOP application, the ONLY MODEL is the Windows Logo program for certification that has been around since before 2002 and gained notice with Windows XP.

It is now called 'Windows Application Certification' and maybe the name change is what has you and idiots like Notch so confused.

The only CHANGE to this process (aka - The same one we have had for over 10 years) is the addition of new security checks in the software to obtain the Windows Logo approval *cough* I mean 'Application Certification'.

The guidelines and security checks increasing is NOTHING NEW, they also increased with Vista and also increased with Windows 7.

There is no 'cause' or freaking 'model' to be fighting for or against.

What next, you going to start a group against the NEW Apple model of shipping Mice with Macs, or the NEW 'Sky is Blue' model and demand Microsoft paint the sky Red like it was when you were growing up on Mars?

Seriously, this is how insane you sound.

@Leo said,
No, this doesn't "embarass" Notch, but embarasses all the idiots who criticize him as being lazy.

Well, Notch was the one who misunderstood the message from the start and automatically sprang to hate on windows 8 in the first place. And yes, he should be embarrassed for attacking windows 8. windows 8 is still very much open. You can submit your work to the microsoft store or you don't have to. It's an option, not something which they're forcing on you, unlike apple's ios devices, which remain completely closed.
And why should the users feel embarrassed for criticizing him? The users were slamming notch on his stance toward windows 8 and the os's openness, nothing about him being lazy.

aviator189 said,

Well, Notch was the one who misunderstood the message from the start and automatically sprang to hate on windows 8 in the first place. And yes, he should be embarrassed for attacking windows 8. windows 8 is still very much open. You can submit your work to the microsoft store or you don't have to. It's an option, not something which they're forcing on you, unlike apple's ios devices, which remain completely closed.
And why should the users feel embarrassed for criticizing him? The users were slamming notch on his stance toward windows 8 and the os's openness, nothing about him being lazy.

Oh really? How would I put my app with live tile on the metro start without the MS store? Buy an internal deployment certificate?

And you comment about Apple's iOS - I didn't know we were comparing Windows 8 to tablet OS again. But I agree with you, Windows 8 is a tablet OS, and if that is its purpose, I have no problem with MS lockdown.

@Leo said,

Oh really? How would I put my app with live tile on the metro start without the MS store? Buy an internal deployment certificate?

And you comment about Apple's iOS - I didn't know we were comparing Windows 8 to tablet OS again. But I agree with you, Windows 8 is a tablet OS, and if that is its purpose, I have no problem with MS lockdown.


The thing is, why does notch support his games on apple's app store and xbox, reserves any judgement, but when it comes to windows 8(an os, in which some devices, will be able to run both the desktop mode and the start screen), he attacks it full-on??

aviator189 said,

The thing is, why does notch support his games on apple's app store and xbox, reserves any judgement, but when it comes to windows 8(an os, in which some devices, will be able to run both the desktop mode and the start screen), he attacks it full-on??

Because the two you mention have always been like that, the reason being the devices are purspose built. My PC is hardly purpose built.

@Leo said,

Because the two you mention have always been like that, the reason being the devices are purspose built. My PC is hardly purpose built.

Ok....well, a Windows 8 pc is always going to have the desktop mode, right? Laptops will always have the desktop mode. And not all tablets will lack the desktop mode, just the ARM ones. Besides, are the majority of these ARM tablets really going to be able to run Minecraft? I really don't think so....unless it's the portable edition.

@Leo said,

Oh really? How would I put my app with live tile on the metro start without the MS store? Buy an internal deployment certificate?

What? I have tons of .exes pinned to my metro start menu. They load and work just as well as they did before the metro start menu. You don't have to have your app listed on the Windows store for it to be pinnable.

I think you're quite confused. Minecraft is a JAVA app which means it won't run on Windows RT without a rewrite (unless Java is available on WinRT but I don't know about that). HOWEVER on x86 computers Minecraft can run just fine and it doesn't need to be listed on the Windows store for it to work. Win32 executables run just like they did on Windows 7/Vista/XP/2000 etc, nothing has changed in that respect.

And if you think MS is going to get rid of Win32 you are delusional. MS is a company that's built on backwards compatibility (for better or for worse). They have a massive edge in the OS market because the vast vast majority of software works on Windows. If MS got rid of that they would lost their advantage and marketshare in a heartbeat. Hell even with the popularity of x86-64 hardware and drivers available (literally every computer sold in the past couple of years is 64bit compatible) they still haven't got rid of 32-bit Windows. If they aren't willing to dump 32bit why do people suddenly think they're willing to get rid of Win32?

Edited by -Razorfold, Sep 29 2012, 4:26am :

-Razorfold said,

What? I have tons of .exes pinned to my metro start menu. They load and work just as well as they did before the metro start menu. You don't have to have your app listed on the Windows store for it to be pinnable.

I think you're quite confused. Minecraft is a JAVA app which means it won't run on Windows RT without a rewrite (unless Java is available on WinRT but I don't know about that). HOWEVER on x86 computers Minecraft can run just fine and it doesn't need to be listed on the Windows store for it to work. Win32 executables run just like they did on Windows 7/Vista/XP/2000 etc, nothing has changed in that respect.


No, I am not confused. You are.

Pinned EXEs is not the same as live tile. Theoretically, if he wanted to have some stats of Minecraft in a live tile - he can't unless he goes through the store. This is what he is protesting. I didn't say he didn't want to make a Metro version. He doesn't want to support the OS in its entirety.

@Leo said,

No, I am not confused. You are.

Pinned EXEs is not the same as live tile. Theoretically, if he wanted to have some stats of Minecraft in a live tile - he can't unless he goes through the store. This is what he is protesting. I didn't say he didn't want to make a Metro version. He doesn't want to support the OS in its entirety.


And that doesn't sound hypocritical to you?

He has no problem going through the Android and iOS stores. He has no problem going through the 360 store. But he has a problem going through the Windows store? If he doesn't want to give MS his 30% share sure that's understandable and all he has to do is make his app free and then require users to buy a one-off premium account upgrade from his website. Voila, problem solved and it's not that different to the way things are now. Anyone can play Minecraft classic for free but if you want access to the "real" minecraft you have to make an account and pay for it.

The only thing he'd have to do is pay MS $100 a year but he's a millionaire so I highly doubt that's an issue.

-Razorfold said,

And that doesn't sound hypocritical to you?

He has no problem going through the Android and iOS stores. He has no problem going through the 360 store. But he has a problem going through the Windows store? If he doesn't want to give MS his 30% share sure that's understandable and all he has to do is make his app free and then require users to buy a one-off premium account upgrade from his website. Voila, problem solved. The only thing he'd have to do is pay MS $100 a year but he's a millionaire so I highly doubt that's an issue.


There we go, same argument over and over, the iOS store and 360.

Those stores have always been closed, because the devices are purpose built. Last time I checked, a PC is not purpose built, and Notch does not wish to support the closing of the PC. How difficult is to understand?

@Leo said,

There we go, same argument over and over, the iOS store and 360.

Those stores have always been closed, because the devices are purpose built. Last time I checked, a PC is not purpose built, and Notch does not wish to support the closing of the PC. How difficult is to understand?


And yet again the same bull**** argument. THE PC ISN'T GETTING CLOSED.

YES if you want Modern UI apps or Windows RT it is closed. But if you want the 10 billion + .exes (random number I have no idea how many there are), then it isn't and it won't ever be closed. Your software that worked fine on Windows 7 will continue to work fine on Windows 8 and Windows 9 and so on.

-Razorfold said,

THE PC ISN'T GETTING CLOSED.

YES if you want Modern UI apps or Windows RT it is closed.


Let's finish the discussion here.

@Leo said,

Let's finish the discussion here.


Who says your app has to be Modern UI? Does MS say they have to be? You think games are going to be Modern UI only? You think visual studio, photoshop, 3d studio max etc etc are going to suddenly jump ship over to modern UI only? No they wouldn't. Exes aren't going anywhere. The only reason to make a modern UI version of your app is if you want it to run on ARM tablets. If you don't then continue to making .exes.

Windows RT is just like what iOS is to OS X. It's a tablet version of a desktop OS. If you want to target RT then you make a metro app (just like if you want to target iOS you create an iOS app). If you want to target Windows 8 then you make a .exe app (just like if you want to target OS X you make a .dmg one)

End of discussion.

-Razorfold said,

Who says your app has to be Modern UI? Does MS say they have to be? You think games are going to be Modern UI only? You think visual studio, photoshop, 3d studio max etc etc are going to suddenly jump ship over to modern UI only? No they wouldn't. Exes aren't going anywhere. The only reason to make a modern UI version of your app is if you want it to run on ARM tablets. If you don't then continue to making .exes.

End of discussion.


Obviously you haven't read any documentation then on WinRT or modern UI.

@Leo said,

Obviously you haven't read any documentation then on WinRT or modern UI.

Windows RT is just like what iOS is to OS X. It's a tablet version of a desktop OS. If you want to target RT then you make a metro app (just like if you want to target iOS you create an iOS app). If you want to target Windows 8 then you make a .exe app (just like if you want to target OS X you make a .dmg one).

And just like on iOS if you want to buy apps you buy it through the store. But on Windows 8 (or OS X) you can download and install apps from wherever you please.

Windows RT will be ARM only and developers don't have to target it if they don't want to.

-Razorfold said,

Windows RT is just like what iOS is to OS X. It's a tablet version of a desktop OS. If you want to target RT then you make a metro app (just like if you want to target iOS you create an iOS app). If you want to target Windows 8 then you make a .exe app (just like if you want to target OS X you make a .dmg one).


Hahaha don't let the usual suspects here hear you say that. WinRT is the future of both desktop and tablet, which are supposed to live in one world now, or so Microsoft would want us to belive.

@Leo said,

Hahaha don't let the usual suspects here hear you say that. WinRT is the future of both desktop and tablet, which are supposed to live in one world now, or so Microsoft would want us to belive.

Yeah too bad WinRT is ARM ONLY. What you think Microsoft plans to completely get rid of x86? Do you know how fast their stock and company will collapse if they did?

@Leo said,

Now you are talking out of ignorance. Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime

Er sorry I meant Windows RT as in the OS not the API (MS really needs to work on their naming schemes its retarded at times). I mean Win7 means Windows 7 not the Windows 7 API but now WinRT means the API, gg MS.

Yes there may be people here who think WinRT (the API) should replace Win32 but that won't ever happen. MS is a company that built it's success on backwards compatibility. Like I said if MS completely switches over to WinRT they would be shooting themselves in their foot and they'd lose their massive advantage they have in the software space. If for some reason in the future they do such a stupid thing I would stop using future versions of Windows. But I highly doubt MS is that stupid so Win32 and .exes are here to stay.

@Leo said,

No, I am not confused. You are.

Pinned EXEs is not the same as live tile. Theoretically, if he wanted to have some stats of Minecraft in a live tile - he can't unless he goes through the store. This is what he is protesting. I didn't say he didn't want to make a Metro version. He doesn't want to support the OS in its entirety.

Actually, shortcuts to exes are also Live Tiles, since that's just the name of those things. There are enough tile (like the Internet Explorer 10 tile) that are Live Tiles but doesn't show more information.

Studio384 said,
Actually, shortcuts to exes are also Live Tiles, since that's just the name of those things. There are enough tile (like the Internet Explorer 10 tile) that are Live Tiles but doesn't show more information.

So it's a not live Live Tile? Sounds like a normal icon to me...

@Leo said,

No, I am not confused. You are.

Pinned EXEs is not the same as live tile. Theoretically, if he wanted to have some stats of Minecraft in a live tile - he can't unless he goes through the store.

Actually, you're confused. Only Metro apps can have live tiles. Desktop software cant have live tiles, whether its listed on the Store or not.

Having Minecraft listing on the Store will give it more exposure and MS don't get any money from desktop software sales, as it's simply a link to the developers own site. How is this not a good thing?? Its especially great for small developers that would never normally get this kind of exposure.

@Leo said,

Hahaha don't let the usual suspects here hear you say that. WinRT is the future of both desktop and tablet, which are supposed to live in one world now, or so Microsoft would want us to belive.

The only folks that have said that are those that see a shakeout coming over price - in other words, PCs cost too much. (These are the same folks that are either shorting HP or DELL or selling HP/DELL/etc. (The reason they are buying Apple is because of iDevices - software and services - not OS X or Macs.) I moved to Windows 8 because it is - surprise, surprise - a better DESKTOP operating system. The Windows Store has nit to do with it. Modern UI apps have nit to do with it. (There are some solid ModernUI games - however, as has been the case with Win32, most of these are ports from other platforms.)

NoClipMode said,

Actually, you're confused. Only Metro apps can have live tiles. Desktop software cant have live tiles, whether its listed on the Store or not.


How about you read what I write, jeez. In the theoretical *if* he wants to have a live tile for Minecraft, he cannot do that without going to the store.

-Razorfold said,

Yeah too bad WinRT is ARM ONLY. What you think Microsoft plans to completely get rid of x86? Do you know how fast their stock and company will collapse if they did?

x86? No. Win32? Yes. Don't confuse the two.

@Leo said,

How about you read what I write, jeez. In the theoretical *if* he wants to have a live tile for Minecraft, he cannot do that without going to the store.

It would be more accurate to say that "*if* he wants to have a live tile, he needs to completely re-write his software in WinRT". Having a Live Tile is not a store or no-store issue.

Dot Matrix said,

x86? No. Win32? Yes. Don't confuse the two.


Microsoft isn't planning to get rid of Win32. It would be disastrous. Like I and others have said, MS has built itself up with backwards compatibility. They don't get rid of things like 32bit because they know that a ton of software depends on it even though the vast majority of hardware and software will run on Windows 64bit just fine. So why do people suddenly think they're going to ditch an API used by millions of developers?

Look at Apple. Even though they only hold 5% (or less) of the market it still took them over 10 years to switch from carbon to cocoa. And you think MS is going to ditch an API that 90% of people use in the foreseeable future?

@Leo said,

Oh really? How would I put my app with live tile on the metro start without the MS store? Buy an internal deployment certificate?

May be learn a thing or two before posting comments that embarrass yourself.

Certifying desktop app will only grant you a page in Store and the install/download button will link to your website. It will not allow live tile or anything else.

-Razorfold said,

Microsoft isn't planning to get rid of Win32. It would be disastrous. Like I and others have said, MS has built itself up with backwards compatibility. They don't get rid of things like 32bit because they know that a ton of software depends on it even though the vast majority of hardware and software will run on Windows 64bit just fine. So why do people suddenly think they're going to ditch an API used by millions of developers?

Look at Apple. Even though they only hold 5% (or less) of the market it still took them over 10 years to switch from carbon to cocoa. And you think MS is going to ditch an API that 90% of people use in the foreseeable future?

It won't happen overnight, but with the introduction of Metro apps, the death knell of Win32 has been signaled. Your smaller apps can be easily replaced, your power houses like Photoshop will take the most time.

Dot Matrix said,

It won't happen overnight, but with the introduction of Metro apps, the death knell of Win32 has been signaled. Your smaller apps can be easily replaced, your power houses like Photoshop will take the most time.


And like I said since it took Apple 10 years to switch over when they have 5% marketshare and aren't exactly as backwards compatibly as MS, it will take MS a lot longer than that.

Also some WinRT apps pass API calls to Win32 for directX and other stuff that isn't supported in RT.

@Leo said,

Let's finish the discussion here.


Nah i'd like to butt in.
You say the PC has never been closed, and now you want to stop the discussion at that. WinRT is NOT (again i repeat) NOT targetted for PC's at all.
Also PC's are purpose build, the purpose of being an all-in-one computer device.
Which ALSO includes new features of other computer devices like smartphones, tablets or your fridge.
Windows Store hasnt been in any previous Windows, So why bring that lowsy argument of yours?

The argument was about this guy's ignorant ways that he was complaing about Windows Store being so closed and what not. Any argument he used in a negative way to Win8 at first.... Was countered by the fact that the loser released Minecraft on the iTunes store. Which is the one that is completely closed off. Yet he still releases it and doesnt say anything.
MS does something and BOOYEAH, let the flaming commence?

And like I said since it took Apple 10 years to switch over when they have 5% marketshare and aren't exactly as backwards compatibly as MS, it will take MS a lot longer than that.


Also some WinRT apps pass API calls to Win32 for directX and other stuff that isn't supported in RT.


MS will not drop Win32 untill the usage is so incredible low, the people needing it wont be upgrading their systems anyways.
Generally MS supports its backwards compatibility untill the usage drops FAR below 1%.
For the people who think that MS will drop Win32 anytime before 2025-2030... should go see a goddamn doctor. Or go back to school and study something worthwhile. Cause you seem to be total ignorant for IT or to stupid to grasp the way MS has always worked and will continue to do so.

MS did allot of wrong ladies and gents, but it returned so much good (not gounding the gates foundation charity stuff) for all of us. Without MS you would NOT be here sitting on a computer, having a smartphone with 3g internet, or a tablet, or have a visual representation of the internet as we know it today (i.e. the WWW, because again people lets not forget, the browser that was the birth of the graphical WWW, was Mosaic. And which browser still around today started out as _THE_ original GUI WWW browser Mosaic, thats right. Internet Explorer).
But we can thank MS for that, we can thank MS for sharing so incredibly much information and knowledge back to us IT-guys.

One of the main reasons of sticking with MS for cooperate networks or even for you at home. The PC you buy now, with Win7 or soon Win8. Whatever you got running on it. It will run on the next windows aswell, and the next... and the next... and the next.
I mean, common. I can run software and games that where developed for Windows 95!!?!? runs flawless and smooth as a babies bottom on Windows 8. Yet that OS had a different kernel, 7-8 releases of Windows ago and worst yet, its 17years ago!
Even on Linux your chance is really low that something that was released in 1995 will still compile and run on any modern distro. (maybe if you have the luck of the required libs being almost unchanged in the meantime)

Notch is once again caught exaggerating and spinning something in his favor. The Windows Store wasn't involved at all; it was simply desktop certification. What's the harm in doing that? Just pushing his agenda...

BoneyardBrew said,
Notch is once again caught exaggerating and spinning something in his favor. The Windows Store wasn't involved at all; it was simply desktop certification. What's the harm in doing that? Just pushing his agenda...

The Windows Store is involved. Basically the desktop certification is to have his desktop game on the Windows Store, and to do that MS like to make sure the software/game isn't malicious, is up to standards, and dont have any security flaws. Theres already desktop software on the Store right now. All it does though is have a link that takes you directly to the download page on the developers own site (in this case it would be the Minecraft site).

MS dont even get any money from this as the game or software isn't purchased through the Store, it's just linked. And obviously it gives the developer a much wider audience so it really is a win/win situation. Notch is an idiot, simple as that.

NoClipMode said,

The Windows Store is involved. Basically the desktop certification is to have his desktop game on the Windows Store, and to do that MS like to make sure the software/game isn't malicious, is up to standards, and dont have any security flaws. Theres already desktop software on the Store right now. All it does though is have a link that takes you directly to the download page on the developers own site (in this case it would be the Minecraft site).

MS dont even get any money from this as the game or software isn't purchased through the Store, it's just linked. And obviously it gives the developer a much wider audience so it really is a win/win situation. Notch is an idiot, simple as that.


No, this was just the Desktop App Certification Program, know as the Windows Software Logo Program on Windows 7, it's just a process you really should go trough to check if your app conforms to what essential is best practice. To have a desktop app in the Windows Store it probably has to go trough the certification but that isnt what this was about...

Anthonyd said,
It costs $99 to validate your apps.
https://sysdev.microsoft.com/en-US/desktop/signup/

That's not the certification in question here though, this is the Desktop App Certification Program, know as the Windows Software Logo Program on Windows 7. All it means is that you certify your app to show that it behaves in certain ways, follows certain security practices, doesn't need compatibility mode, handle shutdown in a certain way and time, allows a proper and clean uninstall and so on. Basically it just certifies that your app conforms to what really is just best practice.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...ndows/desktop/hh749939.aspx

Notch is quite an amazing guy, but like most people, he's got his flaws. I feel that sometimes he's immature and ignorant. I'm not even why Notch is trashing Windows 8 right now.

1. Windows 8 is completely open, there's no limit to which apps can be installed
2. Did Notch even read the email correctly? It's just asking him to certify minecraft for security reasons. Plus if he puts it on the app store, he'll get a much wider range of players. Minecraft is already on Google Play and the iOS Appstore, so why not put it on the Windows store?

link6155 said,
Notch is quite an amazing guy, but like most people, he's got his flaws. I feel that sometimes he's immature and ignorant. I'm not even why Notch is trashing Windows 8 right now.

1. Windows 8 is completely open, there's no limit to which apps can be installed
2. Did Notch even read the email correctly? It's just asking him to certify minecraft for security reasons. Plus if he puts it on the app store, he'll get a much wider range of players. Minecraft is already on Google Play and the iOS Appstore, so why not put it on the Windows store?


Notch isn't amazing. He's just some fatass that guy lucky with his infiniminer clone. Other than that, he knows nothing at all about anything computer related. I can't even fathom how many brain cells I have lost to **** he has said.

Phantom Spaceman said,
Of course MS wants Minecraft on the window's app store, they want the money and exposure. ;-)

Money and exposure? Microsoft doesn't get any money from desktop apps listed in the app store.

rfirth said,

Money and exposure? Microsoft doesn't get any money from desktop apps listed in the app store.

No, they just get people to think Win 8 isn't the nightmare that it is and make money on sales that way. Think before you speak please.

rfirth said,
Money and exposure? Microsoft doesn't get any money from desktop apps listed in the app store.
It costs $99 to validate your apps.
https://sysdev.microsoft.com/en-US/desktop/signup/


Still, notch is a giant douchebag if he thinks that everybody can affords an online store instead of going on the Windows Store that is much cheaper and the maintain costs is near to 0.

Anthonyd said,
It costs $99 to validate your apps.
https://sysdev.microsoft.com/en-US/desktop/signup/

That's not the certification in question here though, this is the Desktop App Certification Program, know as the Windows Software Logo Program on Windows 7. All it means is that you certify your app to show that it behaves in certain ways, follows certain security practices, doesn't need compatibility mode, handle shutdown in a certain way and time, allows a proper and clean uninstall and so on. Basically it just certifies that your app conforms to what really is just best practice.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...ndows/desktop/hh749939.aspx

Leonick said,

That's not the certification in question here though, this is the Desktop App Certification Program, know as the Windows Software Logo Program on Windows 7. All it means is that you certify your app to show that it behaves in certain ways, follows certain security practices, doesn't need compatibility mode, handle shutdown in a certain way and time, allows a proper and clean uninstall and so on. Basically it just certifies that your app conforms to what really is just best practice.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...ndows/desktop/hh749939.aspx

My bad then

Leonick said,

All it means is that you certify your app to show that it behaves in certain ways, follows certain security practices, doesn't need compatibility mode, handle shutdown in a certain way and time, allows a proper and clean uninstall and so on. Basically it just certifies that your app conforms to what really is just best practice.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...ndows/desktop/hh749939.aspx

What Microsoft says is best practice . . . Even if they made the OS, they have plenty of bugs in their own software, so I wouldn't say they are the "only ones that know how to program correctly."

Leonick said,

That's not the certification in question here though, this is the Desktop App Certification Program, know as the Windows Software Logo Program on Windows 7. All it means is that you certify your app to show that it behaves in certain ways, follows certain security practices, doesn't need compatibility mode, handle shutdown in a certain way and time, allows a proper and clean uninstall and so on. Basically it just certifies that your app conforms to what really is just best practice.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...ndows/desktop/hh749939.aspx

a few simple changes: ..... digitally sign Minecraft.exe = $99

L2R

farmeunit said,

What Microsoft says is best practice . . . Even if they made the OS, they have plenty of bugs in their own software, so I wouldn't say they are the "only ones that know how to program correctly."


I'd like to see anyone write a better OS. oh wait, Apple tried, Google, Mozilla, Linus. Yet all of these genius's failed. But hey, MS wrote the OS and has developed on NT the past 2 decades. And the rule still counts, every X amount of lines of code has X mistakes/errors/typoes in them. Noone can bring this to 0 errors per project unless its just a small project .

But seems like you can do it better, know better how the OS works, know better how software should use and utilize the OS. Please show us and the world your knowledge.

MeltedMacaroni said,
Notch knows Windows 8 is dead on arrival. Can't blame him, he is correct.

If he knew it was dead on arrival, he wouldn't be trying to convince people not to use it. He wouldn't be talking about making his game not run on Windows 8 in order to convince people to use it.

MeltedMacaroni said,
Notch knows Windows 8 is dead on arrival. Can't blame him, he is correct.
You must have an app you want Rafael to do the work on for you too.

MeltedMacaroni said,
Notch knows Windows 8 is dead on arrival. Can't blame him, he is correct.

Looking forward to constantly trolling people like you when Win 8 does well. Fun times ahead.

MeltedMacaroni said,
Notch knows Windows 8 is dead on arrival. Can't blame him, he is correct.

I saw you make the same comment yesterday. Good to see that Ctrl + C is working correctly.

MeltedMacaroni said,
Notch knows Windows 8 is dead on arrival. Can't blame him, he is correct.

I wouldn't say that quite yet. Posted from one of three machines running RTM. Good times are ahead.

rfirth said,

If he knew it was dead on arrival, he wouldn't be trying to convince people not to use it. He wouldn't be talking about making his game not run on Windows 8 in order to convince people to use it.

It's Microsoft, and you know, they can do no wrong. (I'm being sarcastic).

NoClipMode said,

Looking forward to constantly trolling people like you when Win 8 does well. Fun times ahead.

Looking forward to constantly trolling people like you when Win 8 falls to the grave. Definitely fun times ahead.

scaramonga said,

Looking forward to constantly trolling people like you when Win 8 falls to the grave. Definitely fun times ahead.


It wont, the adoption in the world has already started, all major companies want in with MS on Win8 and see its potential.
That you and a minority of loudly shouting biased morons think it will fail. Happy for you, screw you and go to linux if you hate it so much. Dont bother with OSX as usual, it will follow Windows' footsteps and will combine OSX and iOS into one.
But hey! Keep spreading biased FUD around like a true fool, makes you look really cool.(nowadays its cool to have no or a negative IQ as it seems)

Shadowzz said,

It wont, the adoption in the world has already started, all major companies want in with MS on Win8 and see its potential.
That you and a minority of loudly shouting biased morons think it will fail. Happy for you, screw you and go to linux if you hate it so much. Dont bother with OSX as usual, it will follow Windows' footsteps and will combine OSX and iOS into one.
But hey! Keep spreading biased FUD around like a true fool, makes you look really cool.(nowadays its cool to have no or a negative IQ as it seems)

while constantly spitting the same boring subjective "opinion" like a parrot on cocaine makes the haters look intelligent and mature - naturally

but he won't. He said so himself he doesn't want the game on Windows 8 and hopes it gets people to not use it. but **** him and his game i say.

Colin McGregor said,
but he won't. He said so himself he doesn't want the game on Windows 8 and hopes it gets people to not use it. but **** him and his game i say.

Regardless of whether he certifies it or not, it will still be available and work on Windows 8

I have only ever played Minecraft on Windows 8...lol I started playing right after the CP came out and was already using Win 8 as my primary OS.