is anyone giving up on windows already?;)

B00nie said:
It's very common for applications to replace dlls on windows. One example is Office installs or IE installs. Some apps will inject stuff to existing dlls in order to hook to them. Copy protections inject or replace system dlls for example.
Click to expand...

These applications (the office and ie ones) do not modify system DLLs. They run the installers for updates to runtimes which have their own DLLs but they never touch the DLLs directly. These are official updates to the DLLs being placed by official installers.

There may be copy protection which does this, but these are not what I would consider to be credible applications. Feel free to name a specific copy protection that does this, along with examples of system DLLs it modifies. Until then, you're not providing a real example.



B00nie said:
System libraries and registry are not unrelated topics since both are areas which are commonly negatively affected by windows application installs.
Click to expand...

They are completely unrelated in function, and if you knew anything about them you would not try to make the comparison.

All you're doing is demonstrating that you don't understand Linux or Windows. Citing examples of something which can be done on either operating system does not demonstrate that Windows has a problem. It merely demonstrates that you don't know what you're taking about.
 
Dogs said:
These applications (the office and ie ones) do not modify system DLLs. They run the installers for updates to runtimes which have their own DLLs but they never touch the DLLs directly. These are official updates to the DLLs being placed by official installers.

There may be copy protection which does this, but these are not what I would consider to be credible applications. Feel free to name a specific copy protection that does this, along with examples of system DLLs it modifies. Until then, you're not providing a real example.
Click to expand...

Starforce. Installs device drivers of it's own. Sony rootkit. Etc etc. Windows is has a lively history of this sort of events. The whole concept 'Dll hell' didn't come out of thin air you know. The problems still continue with .Net versions for example.

They are completely unrelated in function, and if you knew anything about them you would not try to make the comparison.

All you're doing is demonstrating that you don't understand Linux or Windows. Citing examples of something which can be done on either operating system does not demonstrate that Windows has a problem. It merely demonstrates that you don't know what you're taking about.
Click to expand...

Now that you understand linux so much, give me the simple example I asked for or admit you don't know what you're talking about.
 
B00nie said:
Starforce. Installs device drivers of it's own.
Click to expand...

Name a system DLL it overwrites.

B00nie said:
Now that you understand linux so much, give me the simple example I asked for or admit you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Okay. Here's a program that can overwrite a shared library: echo

If you open up a terminal and run the command below as root, you will have just overwritten a system library. It's trivial to do this in Linux, so the ability to do this in Windows is not a 'Windows problem'.
echo CATFOOD > /lib/libip4tc.so.0

After executing that statement, the contents of that file will be the text 'CATFOOD'.
 
Dogs said:
Name a system DLL it overwrites.
Click to expand...
It replaces a device driver with its own version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarForce

Okay. Here's a program that can overwrite a shared library: echo

If you open up a terminal and run the command below as root, you will have just overwritten a system library. It's trivial to do this in Linux, so the ability to do this in Windows is not a 'Windows problem'.
echo CATFOOD > /lib/libip4tc.so.0

After executing that statement, the contents of that file will be the text 'CATFOOD'.
Click to expand...

I specifically asked about application install that overwrites a library, not a command to do so! What's next, rm -Rf *?
 
B00nie said:
It replaces a device driver with its own version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarForce
Click to expand...

That is not a system DLL. Try again when you understand what you're talking about.


B00nie said:
I specifically asked about application install that overwrites a library, not a command to do so! What's next, rm -Rf *?
Click to expand...

I already demonstrated that it's trival to do the thing on Linux which you claim makes Windows problematic. In other words, your argument is logically invalid. On a side note, you have yet to successfully identify a Windows application which replaces a system DLL.

By your logic, I could point out to you that in Linux, bad things will occur if you convince someone to run the command "t(){t|t &};t" (do you know what this does?), and that would suddenly have proved that Linux has major problems and is worse than Windows, even though similar things can be done on Windows (do you know of any?) as well.
 
Dogs said:
That is not a system DLL. Try again when you understand what you're talking about..
Click to expand...

Oh a device driver is not a system dll. What exactly is then?

I already demonstrated that it's trival to do the thing on Linux which you claim makes Windows problematic. In other words, your argument is logically invalid. On a side note, you have yet to successfully identify a Windows application which replaces a system DLL.

By your logic, I could point out to you that in Linux, bad things will occur if you convince someone to run the command "t(){t|t &};t" (do you know what this does?), and that would suddenly have proved that Linux has major problems and is worse than Windows, even though similar things can be done on Windows (do you know of any?) as well.
Click to expand...

Oh right. You've convinced me that Windows is completely secure and no attacks are possible against it. Now go tell that to the gazillion antivirus companies that make a living over it. LOL!

You have proved so far that anyone can do anything using a superuser account in linux which everyone knows already anyway. What I want you to show is which application will modify or replace system libraries, device drivers etc. on linux.
 
B00nie said:
Oh a device driver is not a system dll. What exactly is then?
Click to expand...

A dynamic link library used and provided by the operating system is a system DLL (dynamic link library is what the acronym dll stands for, since you seem to be struggling with these things), while anything else is not a system dll. If you can't differentiate between a device driver and a DLL, you shouldn't be discussing operating systems. You're welcome to rejoin this discussion once you have finished figuring out what you're talking about.
 
Dogs said:
A dynamic link library used and provided by the operating system is a system DLL (dynamic link library is what the acronym dll stands for, since you seem to be struggling with these things), while anything else is not a system dll. If you can't differentiate between a device driver and a DLL, you shouldn't be discussing operating systems. You're welcome to rejoin this discussion once you have finished figuring out what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/815065 said:
The following list describes some of the files that are implemented as DLLs in Windows operating systems:

ActiveX Controls (.ocx) files
An example of an ActiveX control is a calendar control that lets you select a date from a calendar.
Control Panel (.cpl) files
An example of a .cpl file is an item that is located in Control Panel. Each item is a specialized DLL.
Device driver (.drv) files
An example of a device driver is a printer driver that controls the printing to a printer.
Click to expand...

I welcome you to do the same.
 
Dogs said:
Competent users wouldn't run into that problem, though. Competent users are capable of either A.) changing that default behavior or (much better) B.) not letting their computer get to the point where it has to forcefully restart to install updates for security reasons.

So no, that only serves to support the idea that only incompetent users have problems with windows. I don't know where you learned logic, but you did it wrong.
Click to expand...

True... I should have recognized that Windows would ship with such an idiotic default configuration.

I'll have to proceed more cautiously.

Maybe when I get a 12-hour chunk of time I will go through every single setting in the Control Panel and make sure the default is set to something non-asinine. Who knows what I'll find.
 
Dogs said:
Those aren't system DLLs. Additionally, not all device drivers are DLLs. All you have done is prove that you can't read.
Click to expand...


And I quote:

Dogs said:
If you can't differentiate between a device driver and a DLL, you shouldn't be discussing operating systems.
Click to expand...

Now which way was it again? :D
 
jwcalla said:
True... I should have recognized that Windows would ship with such an idiotic default configuration.

I'll have to proceed more cautiously.

Maybe when I get a 12-hour chunk of time I will go through every single setting in the Control Panel and make sure the default is set to something non-asinine. Who knows what I'll find.
Click to expand...

Windows is just made stupid. If you want to make it kinda secure it will block you from doing most of the things you'll want to normally do or nag about them every other turn.

I always chuckle when outlook blocks attaching certain files for 'security'. Yeah, why would the user want ot actually use his e-mail for stuff when it's safer to stop him from doing it at all :D
 
B00nie said:
Windows is just made stupid. If you want to make it kinda secure it will block you from doing most of the things you'll want to normally do or nag about them every other turn.

I always chuckle when outlook blocks attaching certain files for 'security'. Yeah, why would the user want ot actually use his e-mail for stuff when it's safer to stop him from doing it at all :D
Click to expand...

Because e-mail attachments are a common avenue for malware? :rolleyes:
 
Tsumi said:
Because e-mail attachments are a common avenue for malware? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, they're an avenue for malware because MS made outlook a vacuum for viruses and malware through autoexecuting and integrations to office etc.

So their solution is to stop sending 'dangerous' files even for work purposes to protect users. Ergo MS knows the only way to keep you safe is to stop you from using the product.
 
I am pretty sure you can configure outlook however you want. Also outlook is not windows.... I have 3 kids that use windows all day and they never get infections. Its not really that hard, you just make a separate admin account. My guess is boonie you are just as bad at using windows as I am with Linux.
 
B00nie said:
Yes, they're an avenue for malware because MS made outlook a vacuum for viruses and malware through autoexecuting and integrations to office etc.

So their solution is to stop sending 'dangerous' files even for work purposes to protect users. Ergo MS knows the only way to keep you safe is to stop you from using the product.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Gmail blocks a number of attachments? You can't send .exe files for instance.
 
B00nie said:
And I quote:



Now which way was it again? :D
Click to expand...

A printer driver, though it may contain DLLs, is not a system DLL. Fact. End of discussion. In other words, you have not demonstrated your claim. Feel free to rejoin this discussion once you have learned both what you are talking about and how to read.

B00nie said:
Yes, they're an avenue for malware because MS made outlook a vacuum for viruses and malware through autoexecuting and integrations to office etc.

So their solution is to stop sending 'dangerous' files even for work purposes to protect users. Ergo MS knows the only way to keep you safe is to stop you from using the product.
Click to expand...

It's only an avenue for viruses if you're incompetent about computers. Bad computer security is OS agnostic. If you're doing things in an unsafe way, you can get viruses on any platform. At the same time, if you do things correctly, you will have minimal security problems on any of the platforms. They're all secure if used right, and they're all insecure if used wrong.
 
Last edited:
B00nie, I agree with you that Linux is good enough to use for everyday tasks for 99% of people. It also has more than enough software, and is free. It's great as long you give someone a Linux install with everything configured.

The problem comes when they try to add things to it - e.g. most people are used to going to download.com etc, find an installer, double click and install. Not going to whatever package manager GUI happens to be in the distro and searching there, although the 2nd method is much nicer and integrated as well as avoiding malware.

Same goes for buying new hardware like a printer/webcam and plugging it in. Most times it will work. If it doesn't there's no easy clue on how to fix it, since a google search/asking friends is unlikely to give a simple fix.

It's not really a Linux problem, its about familiarity. I've seen the same issues when people try to switch from OSX to Windows or vice versa, there's too much to relearn. And Windows is what they're most likely to encounter at work, at home, friend's place, cybercafé etc.

As for cost, most people buy a pc/laptop from a retail outlet which has Windows included, so is essentially free to them. Then they can buy a bunch of games or software in the same store and be productive.
 
Dogs said:
It's only an avenue for viruses if you're incompetent about computers. Bad computer security is OS agnostic. If you're doing things in an unsafe way, you can get viruses on any platform. At the same time, if you do things correctly, you will have minimal security problems on any of the platforms. They're all secure if used right, and they're all insecure if used wrong.
Click to expand...

This is complete nonsense. You want every computer user to be an expert and not a layman? The fact is Windows is by far the most popular OS so naturally its a huge target. MS has tried to mitigate this by reducing the attack surface and introducing things like UAC. They have not worked. Windows Defender/MSE effectiveness continues to fall and its one of the worst rated today.

Here's what's expected of a normal non-technical user - they buy a pc, add a user account and use it. By default, Windows is set to auto-update and UAC is enabled. Most users don't know enough to mess with those settings. They will then install software (which WILL ask for UAC elevation with ZERO clue about whether its safe to install), visit websites etc.

"used right" is meaningless. What I described above is using it right. And guess what - doing this you CAN get malware. You are also almost certainly guaranteed some sort of 'Windows update error', 'program couldn't be installed', Action Center warnings which cannot be deciphered etc. It's almost impossible to get Windows 7/8/8.1 to bluescreen or crash though, which is a huge deal.

It's easy to blame the user. It's easy to say 'security is a mindset and not a software problem'. This doesn't address the very real concern people face.
 
Such a vague phrase as "using right" could be taken to such an extreme that it becomes meaningless. Naturally, I would expect Dogs' own definition of "using" to vary substantially from one moment to the next, and "using right" is even more open to personal interpretation.

A person always takes risks when executing any kind of application, even one provided by the OS vendor itself, and even with a robust permissions system in place. Just because one is using a machine "right" does not mean an executable cannot be a vector for malware: the vector is inherent in an executable's ability to, you know, execute code. Which is kind of how malware works.
 
MrCrispy said:
What I described above is using it right.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's using it wrong, as it goes directly against Microsoft's own recommendations of how to use Windows. Sorry, try again. In case you're ignorant of this, see here:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-vista/user-accounts-frequently-asked-questions

You'll notice that I have never made the claim that A.) vendors ship computers properly set up right out of the box or B.) that the way in which most users use their computer is the right way to do so, which is why most users occasionally suffer from viruses.

MrCrispy said:
It's easy to say 'security is a mindset and not a software problem'. This doesn't address the very real concern people face.
Click to expand...

The very real problem that people face, like most other problems in our contemporary world, is that the standards to which people are held are much, much, much too low. Much like how getting a driver's license is far too easy in most countries (even though driving can go very wrong, people are not held to high enough standards when it comes to driving, because driving is so valuable in modern society), people are given a set of security rules that are not strict enough given the average skill of consumers.

Certainly lots of people disagree with me, but clearly the status quo isn't working. If I had my way, people who couldn't drive a manual transmission wouldn't be allowed to drive at all, unless they had a physical handicap preventing them from operating a clutch pedal (not that driving a manual is itself a safer practice, but people who can drive a manual are statistically more attentive, and also more familiar with the mechanical operation of a vehicle). People would not be given licenses unless they were capable of demonstrating their ability to give the correct response in potentially hazardous situations (such as how they handle a high speed blowout). Likewise, I would prefer it if people who don't know what they are doing aren't allowed to do whatever it is they don't really know how to do, because I feel the risks and potential harm outweigh any benefit gained by letting that person do whatever they aren't competent at doing.
 
Last edited:
From the link you provided:

Yes. When you set up Windows, you'll be required to create a user account. This account will be an administrator account to allow you to set up your computer and install any programs that you would like to use. Once you have finished setting up your computer, we recommend that you use a standard user account for your everyday computing. The Welcome screen, where you log on to Windows, displays the accounts that are available on the computer and identifies the account type so you'll know if you're using an administrator or standard user account. For more information on why you should use a standard user account, see Why use a standard user account instead of an administrator account?
Click to expand...

Isn't this exactly the same procedure that Linux recommends? Not to run as admin/root unless necessary? I admit that Microsoft doesn't stress this enough and guide users through it. The principle of least privilege is by far the most effective means of dealing with malware. The initial login process of Windows does need to head the advice in the quoted material and guide the initial user to setup a standard account.
 
heatlesssun said:
Isn't this exactly the same procedure that Linux recommends? Not to run as admin/root unless necessary?
Click to expand...

This is the procedure recommended for all operating systems, yes.

heatlesssun said:
I admit that Microsoft doesn't stress this enough and guide users through it. The principle of least privilege is by far the most effective means of dealing with malware. The initial login process of Windows does need to head the advice in the quoted material and guide the initial user to setup a standard account.
Click to expand...

I assume that the reason Microsoft hasn't been more proactive about this is that consumers would not respond to it. Given the mindlessness of most computer users, and the complete and utter lack of ethics of computer journalists, it would probably just get turned into a 'Microsoft is trying to control what you can and can't install on your computer' ordeal. If it were up to me, consumers would be required to create both types of accounts. But it isn't up to me. It might also help if the average computer skill of users were increased, but in the US most public education systems fight very hard to prevent computer curriculum to be standardized or more heavily required.
 
Dogs said:
I assume that the reason Microsoft hasn't been more proactive about this is that consumers would not respond to it. Given the mindlessness of most computer users, and the complete and utter lack of ethics of computer journalists, it would probably just get turned into a 'Microsoft is trying to control what you can and can't install on your computer' ordeal. If it were up to me, consumers would be required to create both types of accounts. But it isn't up to me. It might also help if the average computer skill of users were increased, but in the US most public education systems fight very hard to prevent computer curriculum to be standardized or more heavily required.
Click to expand...

Bottom line, Windows is a product that's steeped in user intransigence. It's just difficult to chance ANYTHING in Windows these days because there's just so much vested in doing things a certain way. Vista had many problems, but tightening the security model was on of it's biggest challenges and Microsoft didn't get it quite right with UAC the first time. Then Windows 7 and almost not so much as peep with the same idea.

I think at this point that it's nearly impossible for Microsoft to introduce big change without big controversy initially. Then they clean it up and then most are ok. I think that the next version of Windows probably should do what you're saying with the account setup, assuming they can address the complaints of the Modern UI enough.
 
Windows launches all applications with user-level permissions unless specifically and manually authenticated to run with an elevated access token via UAC. From the perspective of launching executables, there is actually similar risk: only somewhat less as running as an actual user, as there are reduced write permissions in that case. This is still not perfectly impervious to circumvention, but a good barrier.

Does a user-level account stop malware? In some cases, yes. Does a user-level account prevent an executable from being a vector for malware? Nope. Of course not.
 
wonderfield said:
Windows launches all applications with user-level permissions unless specifically and manually authenticated to run with an elevated access token via UAC. From the perspective of launching executables, there is actually similar risk: only somewhat less as running as an actual user, as there are reduced write permissions in that case. This is still not perfectly impervious to circumvention, but a good barrier.
Click to expand...

This isn't exactly true, at least not with Windows 8.x. Modern apps can't explicitly be given any more rights by the user than Modern apps are allowed. A Modern can't run as a Windows administrator.

wonderfield said:
Does a user-level account stop malware? In some cases, yes. Does a user-level account prevent an executable from being a vector for malware? Nope. Of course not.
Click to expand...

Depends on what the malware is trying to do. If the malware needs admin privileges, which much malware does, unless that malware can escalate its privileges then that malware tends to be effectively stopped. Of course in the web and cloud connected world of today there's malware that has nothing to do with targeting the local client.
 
Arch linux is my poison of choice. It's unforgiving of error, but if you get it right, it's oh so sweet.
 
Ruoh said:
Arch linux is my poison of choice. It's unforgiving of error, but if you get it right, it's oh so sweet.
Click to expand...

I second this. 70% of my home computing is on Arch. The other 30% is on Windows 8 for primarily gaming.
 
heatlesssun said:
Depends on what the malware is trying to do. If the malware needs admin privileges, which much malware does, unless that malware can escalate its privileges then that malware tends to be effectively stopped. Of course in the web and cloud connected world of today there's malware that has nothing to do with targeting the local client.
Click to expand...

At work, our users never have admin rights. So, when they get infected, it's easy to clean up. There are a few things it does without admin rights - change wallpaper, home page, and small things like that where users can change settings without elevated rights. It makes it very easy to clean. If they did have admin rights (and a few did), then it can take a lot longer to clean up.

Now, if you were a home user running with local admin rights, the malware would hit much harder. But, then you get into usability issues. At work, to install software, it usually requires a call to helpdesk to help you out (Run as... with admin rights). At home, you want to put it in, install it (even with UAC prompt) and go. If they were prompted to enter an admin password different than their main user account, they'd bitch and moan. It would be much safer, though. The whole usability vs. safety thing. It's a real tough thing to manage... You can make a super secure OS, but it wouldn't do much. Businesses look at how much rights to give users - enough to do their job with ease, but not too much to be insecure. It's different for everybody.

Linux users are used to it. You want to run something as su? Prompt. That's how it has been, that's how it will be. Windows, it's not a new concept, but it's becoming more common. People aren't used to it, and they want easy. Add that extra step, and people don't like it. It may be more secure, but it takes something away from that 'easy'.

For those with wives that aren't super computer savvy, crank up security on their Windows computer. See if they accept it or if they start complaining. Usually, those are the type of people Windows is marketed for. That's who Microsoft has to please.
 
heatlesssun said:
Isn't this exactly the same procedure that Linux recommends? Not to run as admin/root unless necessary? I admit that Microsoft doesn't stress this enough and guide users through it. The principle of least privilege is by far the most effective means of dealing with malware. The initial login process of Windows does need to head the advice in the quoted material and guide the initial user to setup a standard account.
Click to expand...

Some distributions don't allow a user (by default) to log in using the GUI as root. A user can do much more damage faster as root than an admin user in Windows (IMO). I won't post the command to delete the system libraries, but yeah it's that easy.
 
heatlesssun said:
Isn't this exactly the same procedure that Linux recommends? Not to run as admin/root unless necessary?
Click to expand...

Not only recommends but all the more popular distros force you to create a separate root and user account right from the beginning and expect you to use your regular login for use.

Ubuntu has gone the furthest to disable root login almost completely.
 
Dogs said:
A printer driver, though it may contain DLLs, is not a system DLL. Fact. End of discussion. In other words, you have not demonstrated your claim. Feel free to rejoin this discussion once you have learned both what you are talking about and how to read.



It's only an avenue for viruses if you're incompetent about computers. Bad computer security is OS agnostic. If you're doing things in an unsafe way, you can get viruses on any platform. At the same time, if you do things correctly, you will have minimal security problems on any of the platforms. They're all secure if used right, and they're all insecure if used wrong.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with the MS bulletin I just posted to you. Your word against Microsofts. Clearly you are to believe here.

And as far as Outlook goes, you're wearing rose colored glasses as usual:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ngerous_Outlook_hack_by_preview_bug_next_week pwned by preview...
 
B00nie said:
So you disagree with the MS bulletin I just posted to you. Your word against Microsofts. Clearly you are to believe here.
Click to expand...

It's obvious that you're lacking both an understanding of computers and an ability to read. My posts do not conflict with your Microsoft link. It is only your extreme lack of understanding of the topic you are trying to discuss that leads you to believe that my post is not in agreement with that Microsoft page.
 
ElementaryOS for everyday usage, dualbooting W8 for gaming, mix of unix/MS for server platforms, W8/linux mix for server monitoring stations and misc information (metro apps for eyecandy stations f.x.)
 
Dogs said:
It's obvious that you're lacking both an understanding of computers and an ability to read. My posts do not conflict with your Microsoft link. It is only your extreme lack of understanding of the topic you are trying to discuss that leads you to believe that my post is not in agreement with that Microsoft page.
Click to expand...

You sound like a broken record, yet you haven't provided anything to the discussion so far.
 
i already given up on windows 8.

if they don't fix things by windows 9, i might look for other alternatives.
 
I am running 8.1 solely for powershell 4.x. If I could run server 2012 on my laptop, I would, but drivers are not there. I honestly don't care what OS I run, since they all do the same thing anyway, plus VM Ware workstation allows me to fill in the few tool gaps that windows has with a *nix machine.

I tried running MINT14 on my daily a while back, With windows in a vm, but it was more a PITA than a blessing. I just don't want to fuck around with Linux in that way anymore.
 
Ur_Mom said:
At work, our users never have admin rights. So, when they get infected, it's easy to clean up. There are a few things it does without admin rights - change wallpaper, home page, and small things like that where users can change settings without elevated rights. It makes it very easy to clean. If they did have admin rights (and a few did), then it can take a lot longer to clean up.

Now, if you were a home user running with local admin rights, the malware would hit much harder. But, then you get into usability issues. At work, to install software, it usually requires a call to helpdesk to help you out (Run as... with admin rights). At home, you want to put it in, install it (even with UAC prompt) and go. If they were prompted to enter an admin password different than their main user account, they'd bitch and moan. It would be much safer, though. The whole usability vs. safety thing. It's a real tough thing to manage... You can make a super secure OS, but it wouldn't do much. Businesses look at how much rights to give users - enough to do their job with ease, but not too much to be insecure. It's different for everybody.

Linux users are used to it. You want to run something as su? Prompt. That's how it has been, that's how it will be. Windows, it's not a new concept, but it's becoming more common. People aren't used to it, and they want easy. Add that extra step, and people don't like it. It may be more secure, but it takes something away from that 'easy'.

For those with wives that aren't super computer savvy, crank up security on their Windows computer. See if they accept it or if they start complaining. Usually, those are the type of people Windows is marketed for. That's who Microsoft has to please.
Click to expand...

This is SO well put.

My philosophy is to make sure the back end is secure and solid, so when they screw their system up, it only affects them. The amount of ancient legacy applications we run makes it impossible to not give local admin rights, and setting up VM's is just not something they can grasp; VPN/remote desktop is confusing as shit to some of them.

So yes, the balancing act continues, but UAC stops most of the attacks, even as local admin. (thank you GPO)
 
nekrosoft13 said:
i already given up on windows 8.

if they don't fix things by windows 9, i might look for other alternatives.
Click to expand...

If by fix you mean remove Metro etc, then be assured it's not going to happen. MS's way forward is to make the OS more like mobile, that much is very clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top