If Windows 8 fails...

If windows 8 fails, will you...

  • Total voters
    211
devil22 said:
Yea, just like MS went back to XP and dumped Vista. Anyway, once again, downgrades of Vista never happened on a massive scale as is frequently repeated on forums, Net Market Share's stats proved it. And if Windows 8 is a success and Windows 9 continues the Windows 8 trend, will you also carry through on your fear inducing threat to link back to these threads, I wonder? Actually what I expect, is that you and others will simply continue to repeat that Windows 8 was massively downgraded, or that massives # of people faked their user agent to pretend to be running Windows 8 because of theoretical compatibility issues, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
At this point, I don't see any point in discussing this with you. I don't think I'm out of line in thinking you won't admit to seeing ANY flaws with MS products and direction, and you have a history of purposefully mistaking points to "be right" ( kind of what you did here with the XP vs Vista argument ).

Not that getting you riled up doesn't have it's own charm, and in doing so exposes your ( paid for I'm sure ) bias. But I feel we have enough examples of this throughout the various threads on the board. I certainly have enough URLs saved in my "Windows 8 cheer leaders" shortcuts folder.
 
devil22 said:
At this point nobody is discussing reasons they don't like Windows 8, just declaring MS will go bankrupt and everyone will switch to Linux, or change it back to Windows 7 UI, etc. Of course I know why, I also know peeps will post reasons in an ad hoc fashion in response to this insight (yea mock it), but if you had real reasons I feel you'd be discussing them without being prompted to.
Click to expand...

Well we tried, but we constantly got cock-blocked with your typical response... "Metro is more efficient. Stop lying" bullshit or "you're not understanding me, Windows 8 is perfect" or "troll-lalalala".

We'd love to have a decent conversation about why we don't like it but you keep trolling and turn every instance into an argument. People are just tired of dealing with you. Apparently all those wonderful apps in the app store aren't keeping you busy enough, you still keep coming back to this thread. Go play cut the rope or angry birds...
 
dnottis said:
Well we tried, but we constantly got cock-blocked with your typical response... "Metro is more efficient. Stop lying" bullshit or "you're not understanding me, Windows 8 is perfect" or "troll-lalalala".

We'd love to have a decent conversation about why we don't like it but you keep trolling and turn every instance into an argument. People are just tired of dealing with you. Apparently all those wonderful apps in the app store aren't keeping you busy enough, you still keep coming back to this thread. Go play cut the rope or angry birds...
Click to expand...

Yea I get it, any opposition to your repetitive spam mob party is a great transgression. Anyways, why doesn't Windows 7 (or Linux or whatever) keep you busy? It's called multitasking by the way.
 
devil22 said:
Yea I get it, any opposition to your repetitive spam mob party is a great transgression. Anyways, why doesn't Windows 7 (or Linux or whatever) keep you busy? It's called multitasking by the way.
Click to expand...

right, the thing metro apps can't do? Multitasking...surely there are a few hundred more useless mobile apps you can bog your machine down with.
 
XOR != OR said:
At this point, I don't see any point in discussing this with you. I don't think I'm out of line in thinking you won't admit to seeing ANY flaws with MS products and direction, and you have a history of purposefully mistaking points to "be right" ( kind of what you did here with the XP vs Vista argument ).

Not that getting you riled up doesn't have it's own charm, and in doing so exposes your ( paid for I'm sure ) bias. But I feel we have enough examples of this throughout the various threads on the board. I certainly have enough URLs saved in my "Windows 8 cheer leaders" shortcuts folder.
Click to expand...

Sure, I have a "history" that doesn't need to be examined any more closely than that. Case closed. Personally I'll put my history against your ridiculous, boring, and exaggerated spamming of unjustified 'conclusions' any day.

But hey, I'm glad you're charmed, because I'm going to "charm" the hell out of you for a long time, I guess it's your lucky day. And I didn't do anything with the XP vs. Vista argument like you insinuate, you just get bent out of shape when people don't say what you expect them to say. If I see flaws in MS products, it's not pertinent to any of the arguments you guys make that I am countering, so don't know why you think it's even relevant. And naturally you have to bring up being paid, something you have absolutely 0 evidence of, nobody can disagree with you unless they are paid, I'm not surprised you're paranoid too, though.
 
Last edited:
dnottis said:
right, the thing metro apps can't do? Multitasking...surely there are a few hundred more useless mobile apps you can bog your machine down with.
Click to expand...

Metro can multitask. It runs more than one metro app at a time. You seem confused.

Metro apps actually don't bog down the machines, ironically, it's desktop/tray/etc. apps that do that, metro apps have strict requirements that they NOT bog the machine down. There's also no rule that a phone type app can't be better than a traditional desktop app, even on a desktop. It's about what the app does, and how it's used, not where it's run that should dictate it's 'style'.
 
Last edited:
Metro doesn't run more than one app at a time. The OS does (specifically the kernel). Metro is designed to work like a phone - a single fullscreen app. The app model is designed so apps don't have to keep running in the background - again, like a phone.

When people talk about multitasking, they mean the user being able to work on multiple things at the same time. You know - like having a couple of chat windows, video player, browser etc all open and visible at the same time.

I'm sure you will now claim that being able to dock a metro app to the side somehow means multitasking, but it really doesn't. Metro apps on a traditional pc are a waste of space, you don't need a fullscreen app with huge controls.
 
MrCrispy said:
Metro doesn't run more than one app at a time. The OS does (specifically the kernel). Metro is designed to work like a phone - a single fullscreen app. The app model is designed so apps don't have to keep running in the background - again, like a phone.

When people talk about multitasking, they mean the user being able to work on multiple things at the same time. You know - like having a couple of chat windows, video player, browser etc all open and visible at the same time.

I'm sure you will now claim that being able to dock a metro app to the side somehow means multitasking, but it really doesn't. Metro apps on a traditional pc are a waste of space, you don't need a fullscreen app with huge controls.
Click to expand...

Thanks for telling me it's the kernel that multitasks metro apps and not 'metro', man that was a greatly needed and pertinent correction to my post while I am talking to people who say things like "Windows 8 sucks donkey balls". Anyway. Well, technically metro apps can be multitasked, although in a limited fashion. But what's weird, is why do you need metro apps to multitask in that universal way, when you have desktop apps that can do that? Should metro apps do everything the desktop apps do? In which case, why have metro, it would be redundant. My advice would be if you need to multitask all those apps, do it from the desktop. Metro is for metro style apps, something to compliment the desktop apps with imo, not a replacement. A lot of apps don't need resizable windows, and are fine running in full screen. Tablets are not just popular because of their portability, laptops already had that. What tablets have that desktops/laptops don't, is a simple usage style, with secure and behaved apps. People desire that, so it makes sense to add it to desktops, but of course the regular desktop apps remain so you can use both. I don't get the opposition to this, seems like the best of both worlds to me, and I enjoy using both, each where they are appropriate, and not when they are not.
 
How exactly does Windows 8 stop people from going into the desktop and opening as many programs and windows as their hardware can support? If you want to multi-task then do it. Remember, there is much more to Windows 8 than just the Modern UI part of it.
 
Last edited:
MrCrispy said:
Metro doesn't run more than one app at a time. The OS does (specifically the kernel). Metro is designed to work like a phone - a single fullscreen app. The app model is designed so apps don't have to keep running in the background - again, like a phone.

When people talk about multitasking, they mean the user being able to work on multiple things at the same time. You know - like having a couple of chat windows, video player, browser etc all open and visible at the same time.

I'm sure you will now claim that being able to dock a metro app to the side somehow means multitasking, but it really doesn't. Metro apps on a traditional pc are a waste of space, you don't need a fullscreen app with huge controls.
Click to expand...

LOL he doesn't even know wtf he's saying. Blind loyalty at its finest. I'm guessing he just loves his new desktop phone....
 
Eman D. Rahym said:
How exactly does Windows 8 stop people from going into the desktop and opening as many programs and windows as their hardware can support?
Click to expand...

open the metro version of IE then go ahead and open.... ohhh wait....:rolleyes:

On the desktop sure, you can have multiple things running at the same time. Metro apps are full screen.
 
dnottis said:
LOL he doesn't even know wtf he's saying. Blind loyalty at its finest. I'm guessing he just loves his new desktop phone....
Click to expand...

You conclude because I left 'apps' out when I said Metro can multitask, that I don't know what I am saying, versus I am being short? Must be the smartest conclusion ever. Anyway, I do love my 'desktop phone', best of both worlds. Probably enjoy it more than you enjoy complaining about it with vapid arguments.
 
dnottis said:
open the metro version of IE then go ahead and open.... ohhh wait....:rolleyes:

On the desktop sure, you can have multiple things running at the same time. Metro apps are full screen.
Click to expand...

Don't use the Metro version of IE if you don't want to. Strange thing to tell someone..
 
dnottis said:
open the metro version of IE then go ahead and open.... ohhh wait....:rolleyes:

On the desktop sure, you can have multiple things running at the same time. Metro apps are full screen.
Click to expand...
What exactly is your point? You do realize that you can run multiple Modern UI apps at the same time and then switch between them? Try it, it's easy. How is it functionally different from running multiple full screen desktop apps and switching between them?

Why with Windows 8 you can even run multiple Modern UI apps and multiple legacy apps at the same time and make use of all of them. Try doing that on Windows 7.
 
devil22 said:
Thanks for telling me it's the kernel that multitasks metro apps and not 'metro', man that was a greatly needed and pertinent correction to my post while I am talking to people who say things like "Windows 8 sucks donkey balls". Anyway. Well, technically metro apps can be multitasked, although in a limited fashion. But what's weird, is why do you need metro apps to multitask in that universal way, when you have desktop apps that can do that? Should metro apps do everything the desktop apps do? In which case, why have metro, it would be redundant. My advice would be if you need to multitask all those apps, do it from the desktop. Metro is for metro style apps, something to compliment the desktop apps with imo, not a replacement. A lot of apps don't need resizable windows, and are fine running in full screen. Tablets are not just popular because of their portability, laptops already had that. What tablets have that desktops/laptops don't, is a simple usage style, with secure and behaved apps. People desire that, so it makes sense to add it to desktops, but of course the regular desktop apps remain so you can use both. I don't get the opposition to this, seems like the best of both worlds to me, and I enjoy using both, each where they are appropriate, and not when they are not.
Click to expand...

Eman D. Rahym said:
How exactly does Windows 8 stop people from going into the desktop and opening as many programs and windows as their hardware can support? If you want to multi-task then do it. Remember, there is much more to Windows 8 than just the Modern UI part of it.
Click to expand...

Eman D. Rahym said:
What exactly is your point? You do realize that you can run multiple Modern UI apps at the same time and then switch between them? Try it, it's easy. How is it functionally different from running multiple full screen desktop apps and switching between them?

Why with Windows 8 you can even run multiple Modern UI apps and multiple legacy apps at the same time and make use of all of them. Try doing that on Windows 7.
Click to expand...

The point is that MS is heavily pushing ModernUI apps as the only future. They are the only apps allowed in the store, the new WinRT api's only support them, and everything else is considered legacy. And these apps are a terrible fit for a pc.

Why as a developer am I not allowed to use WinRT to write a traditional app? Why can't desktop apps use the new capabilities, touch features etc? Why didn't MS allow WinRT apps to not be fullscreen and run on the desktop - there's no technical reason why they couldn't.

If they had. then all legacy apps could slowly move towards WinRT and preserve the user experience, except they would be better. Metro as implemented in Win 8 is very limiting - it won't even let me run 2 apps fullscreen on 2 different monitors. The whole thing is designed for a single screen tablet/phone, which tells you how well it adapts to a modern pc.
 
MrCrispy said:
The point is that MS is heavily pushing ModernUI apps as the only future. They are the only apps allowed in the store, the new WinRT api's only support them, and everything else is considered legacy. And these apps are a terrible fit for a pc.

Why as a developer am I not allowed to use WinRT to write a traditional app? Why can't desktop apps use the new capabilities, touch features etc? Why didn't MS allow WinRT apps to not be fullscreen and run on the desktop - there's no technical reason why they couldn't.

If they had. then all legacy apps could slowly move towards WinRT and preserve the user experience, except they would be better. Metro as implemented in Win 8 is very limiting - it won't even let me run 2 apps fullscreen on 2 different monitors. The whole thing is designed for a single screen tablet/phone, which tells you how well it adapts to a modern pc.
Click to expand...

You do realize Windows RT is for ARM based processors only, which can't run traditional desktop programs anyways?

Microsoft is pushing a new environment so that they can make it run on ARM based tablets as well as x86 tablets, and the desktop is going to remain there for the normal desktop users. They are not pushing to get rid of the desktop anytime soon.
 
MrCrispy said:
The point is that MS is heavily pushing ModernUI apps as the only future. They are the only apps allowed in the store, the new WinRT api's only support them, and everything else is considered legacy. And these apps are a terrible fit for a pc.

Why as a developer am I not allowed to use WinRT to write a traditional app? Why can't desktop apps use the new capabilities, touch features etc? Why didn't MS allow WinRT apps to not be fullscreen and run on the desktop - there's no technical reason why they couldn't.

If they had. then all legacy apps could slowly move towards WinRT and preserve the user experience, except they would be better. Metro as implemented in Win 8 is very limiting - it won't even let me run 2 apps fullscreen on 2 different monitors. The whole thing is designed for a single screen tablet/phone, which tells you how well it adapts to a modern pc.
Click to expand...

Desktop apps are allowed in the store.

Why would someone with touch want to use a touch app on the desktop, they would have a hard time doing so, it really makes no sense. With the small buttons, and resizable Windows - you might as well keep that stuff in the metro UI. Pretty much no matter what MS allowed, someone would probably want more. I would consider this a 1.0 release, and maybe in 2.0 they will add things that users and developers request based on mass usage and feedback. Saying it won't let you run two full screen metro apps on two monitors, doesn't mean it's designed strictly for tablets and phones. Maybe they plan to add it in the future but needed to limit themselves and not get too ambitious to make sure they shipped on time (remember longhorn?), there's a lot of considerations to take into account with things as complex as a overhauled UI, and often not enough time. None of this means it does not adapt well to modern PCs, an OS release can always be better according to someone, personally I don't see the lack of multimonitor metro app support being a deal breaker and I doubt most would. That's a fairly advanced capability that probably can't be justified at this point, but if everyone wants it, they'll let MS know and they'll probably add it.
 
Tsumi said:
You do realize Windows RT is for ARM based processors only, which can't run traditional desktop programs anyways?

Microsoft is pushing a new environment so that they can make it run on ARM based tablets as well as x86 tablets, and the desktop is going to remain there for the normal desktop users. They are not pushing to get rid of the desktop anytime soon.
Click to expand...

You do realize WinRT and Windows RT are 2 completely different things? WinRT is Windows Runtime, the one you are talking about is what was called Windows on ARM.
 
MrCrispy said:
The point is that MS is heavily pushing ModernUI apps as the only future. They are the only apps allowed in the store, the new WinRT api's only support them, and everything else is considered legacy. And these apps are a terrible fit for a pc.

Why as a developer am I not allowed to use WinRT to write a traditional app? Why can't desktop apps use the new capabilities, touch features etc? Why didn't MS allow WinRT apps to not be fullscreen and run on the desktop - there's no technical reason why they couldn't.

If they had. then all legacy apps could slowly move towards WinRT and preserve the user experience, except they would be better. Metro as implemented in Win 8 is very limiting - it won't even let me run 2 apps fullscreen on 2 different monitors. The whole thing is designed for a single screen tablet/phone, which tells you how well it adapts to a modern pc.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm neither a Microsoft employee nor a developer so I can't give technical answers to your questions.

As a lay user of PCs, I will say that I think your fears of a Modern UI exclusive world are premature. Microsoft owns the desktop market. No other competitor comes close. Why on earth would they decide to shoot that cash cow? Microsoft is pushing Modern UI apps right now because they need to be pushed. Ever raise a family? Parents spend money on the kids when they are young and dependent on others. After the kids are grown up and have moved out they are expected to take care of themselves. In 2012, Modern UI is the child. Modern UI needs all the help it can get to grow up, just like any other child. By contrast, the desktop market grew up years ago and can take care of itself with very little input from Microsoft. There's no need to be jealous of the extra attention Modern UI is getting over the legacy desktop, both are getting just what they need to thrive.

If you haven't noticed, despite all the publicity Modern UI is getting, Microsoft has not rested on its laurels with regard to the desktop. Windows 8 is packed full of tweaks and improvements to the desktop experience. The changes haven't been as dramatic as the introduction of Modern UI, but then the desktop has been already pretty well developed over the years.

Microsoft may control the OS, but it doesn't control the market. Folks on this board keep saying Windows 8 is going to fail. If that is the case, then what are you worried about? MS will learn its lesson and get back to its roots. On the other hand, if the Modern UI takes off and Adobe and others bring out new software suites that take advantage of it, then again, what are you worried about? If people find they can get productive work done in Modern UI (something some folks on this board keep insisting is not possible) then the desktop will simply shrink in importance as the market moves to Modern UI. You'll still be getting work done, who cares what environment you're in?
 
MrCrispy said:
You do realize WinRT and Windows RT are 2 completely different things? WinRT is Windows Runtime, the one you are talking about is what was called Windows on ARM.
Click to expand...

And the primary reason why the new WinRT and Metro exists is due to Windows RT. There's also the fact that Microsoft is going to want most, if not all, Windows marketplace applications to be cross-platform compatible. With ARM being restricted as it is, maintaining cross-platform compatibility means restricting some desktop features.

Yes, I do agree this release isn't perfect. There needs to be an ability to pin apps in a 50/50 view, not 25/75 as is currently done. I think their should be an option to easily put a shutdown/restart icon on the start screen. Multi-monitor support isn't fully there yet, but I do really like the cloning of the task bar across all screens. During setup, I think there should be a default programs setup menu, where you can choose to use Metro or desktop applications as the default programs to open files.
 
I really dont think MS is counting on people upgrading from Windows 7 to 8 in any great numbers.

MS knows full well that take away the surface/Touch aspect there isn't really anything new in 8 other than some more polish and a few performance tweaks here and there. If you have a PC or laptop with 7 on it then chances are most of them are only 3 years old, most folks don't change their kit that often, 5-6+ years is more the norm. These will be mainly people with XP/early Vista machines.

They are hoping that folks looking to move on from their old PC or laptop and also maybe want to get into the tablet/touch aspect that a lot around them have been getting into.

Windows 8 is not about destroying the legacy of XP/7 etc. It's about bringing a new aspect of Windows computing to those that want to give it a go.

I'm amazed so many here feel that MS has put a gun to their heads and forcing them to upgrade. Had they added exclusive DirectX12 etc. etc. I would understand but really 8 is just 7 with Touch.

Take it or leave it, but I think we should support MS for trying something different for them.
 
daglesj said:
Take it or leave it, but I think we should support MS for trying something different for them.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I actually *like* the idea of metro. What I don't like is the implementation, and the tyrannical implementation.

I really like the idea of a unified environment, just not how MS is approaching it. And while I will adapt to whatever interface is thrown at me, I am dreading supporting your typical end user while they make the transition.
 
XOR != OR said:
Honestly, I actually *like* the idea of metro. What I don't like is the implementation, and the tyrannical implementation.

I really like the idea of a unified environment, just not how MS is approaching it. And while I will adapt to whatever interface is thrown at me, I am dreading supporting your typical end user while they make the transition.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel as well. Metro is a beautiful design language, that much should be obvious. But the way MS has chosen to implement it is very disappointing. I really don't care if they improve it later, the damage will be done. They've spent >1 year hyping it up, with all sorts of buzzwords like 're-imagining Windows' and 20 page blog entries on minute features, while completely ignoring the huge user feedback on public forums, their blog, Connect, Technet etc. It's an OS designed by a committee, not by user research, and they are hoping because of the huge market presence people will simply be forced to use it.
 
it should be just another option, everyone agrees on that, like >control panel > stuff installed> add/remove windows components > [x] use metro (if youre on a tablet or just feels like using it) > restart, done, but noooo, must fuck everything up like some sort of Picasso that when finish the painting have to smear poo with the finger somewhere just because... :rolleyes:
 
DeathPrincess said:
OSX is a joke. I pity anyone who uses it, and feel sorry for anyone who likes it. It is just bad, unstable and awful. It has next to no programs, is terrible for lots of software types, and it seems the versions it has are unstable junk versions of the Windows programs. Negative benefit, lots of hassle with an unstable OS that is annoying to use.
Click to expand...

Guess you don't use it, do you? I use Win8 on my macbook as well as OSX. OSX is great for when I'm just browsing and doing mail, watching netflix and such. I get good battery life.

Unstable? No crashes in the month I've had it. It just works. Games generally are not as good on OSX, but I never viewed OSX as a gaming platform.

Out of the box, my OSX install can edit my NEF/RAW camera files. Win7 only recently got a MS endorsed RAW package.

Don't get me wrong: OSX is great for browsing, photo editing, email and such, but beyond that I reboot into Win8...but you are blowing things WAY out of proportion.
 
devil22 said:
Why did you move to Linux mint..?
Click to expand...
Mainly, because I got tired of family loading tons of viruses and shit on the computer, and the general bloat that happens to every Windows installation I have ever come across after being installed for a few months.
Also, because fuck Microsoft for forcing a piece of shit UI on us.
 
Joseph F said:
Mainly, because I got tired of family loading tons of viruses and shit on the computer, and the general bloat that happens to every Windows installation I have ever come across after being installed for a few months.
Also, because fuck Microsoft for forcing a piece of shit UI on us.
Click to expand...

What bloat? You mean stuff the users install? Well yea, short of blocking you from installing what you want, that will happen. There are ways to prevent this, such as running your family in their own separate standard user account, and possibly using application locker, etc. Or perhaps there is something out there like the old steady state tool, that will remove any additions after a user logs out, haven't look at that stuff in a while though. Metro apps are a good solution to the viruses that newbish users get, the apps are highly sandboxed and secure, and give you less reason to download stuff from random web sites (which can also be blocked for family.)

I don't understand why you call it a piece of shit UI, you pin your apps to the start screen and launch them in two clicks. Well, people aren't designed to be strictly logical, so if it makes you rage, it makes you rage, just don't understand it.

Kubuntu was a crash fest when I tried it, and managed to wipe out my Windows 7 install on another hard drive because of some issue with grub and UEFI. More destructive than any PC virus I've ever had (which last happened about 10 years ago), ironically..
 
UAC is an extremely good way of preventing your family from installing unwanted software on your computer... Just turn it off on your account and turn it all the way up on their accounts.
 
Tsumi said:
UAC is an extremely good way of preventing your family from installing unwanted software on your computer... Just turn it off on your account and turn it all the way up on their accounts.
Click to expand...

If they are dumb enough to install that crap in the first place, another prompt to ignore and mindlessly click yes on isn't going to make any difference.
 
I'm always amazed at how folks get their PCs so loaded up with 'viruses and shit'. But I get them in to clean up with 20+ trojans and other malwares.

I go all over the web (been here since 1994) and not a peep. I sweep my machines on occasion and not a titter. I don't know where they find most of them. These aren't file sharers or 'grubby' users.

There seems to be two types of users in Windows land and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with technical ability with computers whatsoever.

Those that never get viruses/malware and those that just attract it like flies to dog crap.
 
If 8 fails, I'd imagine 9 would be around the corner in 2-3years so no real need to switch to another OS.
 
GotNoRice said:
If they are dumb enough to install that crap in the first place, another prompt to ignore and mindlessly click yes on isn't going to make any difference.
Click to expand...

Not if you make the user accounts unable to install software without approval from the administrator. That's what UAC is partially there for.
 
Joseph F said:
Mainly, because I got tired of family loading tons of viruses and shit on the computer, and the general bloat that happens to every Windows installation I have ever come across after being installed for a few months.
Click to expand...
I guess what you are saying is your family can do less with Linux and that's a feature?

My installs of Windows go for years without ever getting viruses or suffering from "general bloat." Seems to me that's more user error than any fault of Windows itself.

But wait, maybe there's a solution to that difficulty!

Joseph F said:
Also, because fuck Microsoft for forcing a piece of shit UI on us.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons for developing the Modern UI was to give users a curated store where they can download safe, virus free apps for their PCs. Another reason is that the apps themselves are far more disciplined and civilized than the ones available in the "Wild West" of the legacy desktop. Using Modern UI apps should drastically reduce viruses and prevent "general bloat" in the rest of your PC.

So, on the one hand you have dumped earlier versions of Windows because you don't like that they give your family members the freedom to do stupid things, but on the other hand you refuse to move to Windows 8 because you don't like the "piece of shit UI" even though it will specifically resolve the issues you complain your family creates?
 
generally windows releases do okay especially after a service pack.
 
Eman D. Rahym said:
So, on the one hand you have dumped earlier versions of Windows because you don't like that they give your family members the freedom to do stupid things, but on the other hand you refuse to move to Windows 8 because you don't like the "piece of shit UI" even though it will specifically resolve the issues you complain your family creates?
Click to expand...
How will it resolve those issues? Malware exists for OS X despite the presence of the App Store. There's absolutely no question, either, that malware will find its way into the Mac App Store, and similarly find its way into the Windows Store. That may or may not include viruses, at some point.

Near as I'm aware, there's no Gatekeeper-like functionality in Windows 8. His family members will have no less freedom to engage in stupidity in Windows 8 than they've had before.
 
wonderfield said:
How will it resolve those issues? Malware exists for OS X despite the presence of the App Store. There's absolutely no question, either, that malware will find its way into the Mac App Store, and similarly find its way into the Windows Store. That may or may not include viruses, at some point.

Near as I'm aware, there's no Gatekeeper-like functionality in Windows 8. His family members will have no less freedom to engage in stupidity in Windows 8 than they've had before.
Click to expand...

Well, the metro app container sandbox should be secure, the apps are vetted and reviews can help further. It may not be impossible to break, but it's as difficult theoretically as breaking into the Linux repositories if not more so. So it's as good a solution, as what the user in question did by switching to Linux.

And what functionality of Gatekeeper is not present in Windows? You can restrict any and all Windows accounts to only run signed software (such signatures are not the easiest things to get, and can be revoked if the developer violates the rules.) The family members have the freedom to be stupid in any OS, and Windows 8, by default, but you can make easy changes to make it so they can not run anything but approved software, which can be selected by developer, file path (more useful for programs installed to secure directories like \program files that standard users can't modify), and things like whether the program is signed or not. This has been in Windows for years, btw.
 
Eman D. Rahym said:
I guess what you are saying is your family can do less with Linux and that's a feature?

My installs of Windows go for years without ever getting viruses or suffering from "general bloat." Seems to me that's more user error than any fault of Windows itself.

But wait, maybe there's a solution to that difficulty!


One of the reasons for developing the Modern UI was to give users a curated store where they can download safe, virus free apps for their PCs. Another reason is that the apps themselves are far more disciplined and civilized than the ones available in the "Wild West" of the legacy desktop. Using Modern UI apps should drastically reduce viruses and prevent "general bloat" in the rest of your PC.

So, on the one hand you have dumped earlier versions of Windows because you don't like that they give your family members the freedom to do stupid things, but on the other hand you refuse to move to Windows 8 because you don't like the "piece of shit UI" even though it will specifically resolve the issues you complain your family creates?
Click to expand...

Win 8 will do nothing to prevent the typical problems most people have with Windows. The Store is curated and may higher quality apps with less permissions, but most people won't be using the store. They will still go on the web, go to download.com, click on links in emails, run untrusted software, click yes on dialogs, and the other million things people do.

Modern UI apps are not going to replace anything the normal user uses anytime soon. Do you think people would rather use the builtin Mail app with far less features than type gmail / Hotmail / yahoo.com the way they've been doing for years? Change like this takes years to happen, even if there were any compelling features to make people want to change.
 
wonderfield said:
How will it resolve those issues? Malware exists for OS X despite the presence of the App Store.
Click to expand...
Yes, but is the Mac App store the source of that malware? How much malware has been spotted on the iPad?

wonderfield said:
There's absolutely no question, either, that malware will find its way into the Mac App Store, and similarly find its way into the Windows Store. That may or may not include viruses, at some point.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that after a few years the Mac App Store is still malware free? Sounds pretty good to me! But you're certain that eventually there will be malware there. OK, let's assume there will be. Don't you think the App Store will be better equipped to deal with an infected app than the wacky world wide web? The App Store may not be perfect, but it's still far better than the alternative. No lock is perfect; does that mean we shouldn't bother locking our doors?

wonderfield said:
Near as I'm aware, there's no Gatekeeper-like functionality in Windows 8. His family members will have no less freedom to engage in stupidity in Windows 8 than they've had before.
Click to expand...
That's true, but Windows 8 gives them an incentive to do things besides foolish things. If you don't want your children playing in the street you build them a playground where they can go instead. To me it seems Linux basically tells the kids "stay inside!" Until now, Windows has told the kids "go out and play!" Windows 8 says "here's a park for you to play in!" Which seems to be the better solution to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top