This forum has gotten very quiet lately?

X

x509

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
2,630
Anyone know why the volume of postings in this forum is way, way down from a few months ago.

x509
 
Red Squirrel said:
Maybe more people started to migrate to Linux and stuff is just working so well.

:p
Click to expand...

Yeah, like modern games.


312398120_tp.jpg
 
More like we are tired repeating the same every day. Windows 10 is crap. Windows 10 is crap. Windows 10 is awesome. No, windows 10 is not awesome. And so on. Nothing new to be said.
 
I suspect it's because everyone knows that the Windows 10 argument is very heated.

While I was in the minority of people that liked Windows 8 for what it was and didn't mind learning a new interface, the majority of people were freaked out when they couldn't find the start button. Me, I personally used the run command, search bar, and pinned applications more often than the start menu anyway because they were faster.

But with Windows 10, the Interface is more or less back to what it used to be so people who were holding out for that reason are on board. Now people are more divided because they think games aren't compatible and Microsoft spies on them, etc.

Most of the people who are in favor of Windows 10 really prefer to keep their mouths shut because it's not worth the argument. The other side has points, and I'm not happy with everything in Windows 10. There are lots of little annoyances, like Windows Media Center being removed, or being forced to use 32-bit color mode whether you want it or not. SecuROM technology, etc. But I do think it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be, and that it makes very little sense to live in the past and hold onto the oldest OS you can get away with.

I know that when people start buying new computers with Windows 10 and struggle to find an old copy of Windows to put on them, I'll be the one they come to for help because everyone else avoided it like the plague and doesn't know how it works. But I'll already have the experience I need to help them out. It's better to just get the learning curve out of the way and get used to the quirks rather than holding out until the last minute and being forced to upgrade for one reason or another.

We had Windows XP holdouts who reluctantly upgraded to 7 after resisting Vista for several years. I think if the average version of Windows XP had been a 64-bit OS with support for more RAM, some people would probably STILL be using it. Increased RAM sizes and newer versions of DirectX are what got people to migrate last time, along with an eventual lack of drivers for newer hardware.

It's really just not worth the argument, because people always come around eventually. They hate change, but eventually there will be an application or a piece of hardware they want that requires a newer Windows, and that's when they'll probably give in. They're all going to cave at various times depending on how stubborn they are.
 
Last edited:
BulletDust said:
Don't feel at all limited here as a Linux user, plenty of modern titles on Steam, more than ever in the history of Linux and growing all the time in fact.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I bought that line in 2000 when Loki started making a lot of Linux ports of popular games. I thought Linux might become the gaming platform of choice back then. Now fast forward 16 years later, and I'm fighting with Red Hat 6.3 VMs that don't work to avoid dealing with the mess that is SimCity 3000 compatibility on modern Linux. Ultimately, I was told that VMs don't support such old versions of Linux and rely heavily on having supported guest additions. Someone very nearly talked me into buying a $200 Pentium II machine by trying to convince me it couldn't be done on modern hardware. In the end, I had to run it on a modern 32-bit version of Linux and deal with that painfully complex cocktail of console commands and library compatibility patches on top of patches. Took me days to get it working, and I have to modprobe load the OSS module to get sound and enter a really long command everytime I want to play. Even then, the intro screen is weird and translucent.

Do my friends who got Windows copies of the game have this issue? No, apparently it still works perfectly on Windows with nothing more than an old version of DirectX and a few compatibility settings. Linux people have this attitude that anything that's closed source deserves to die and break compatibility with binaries all the time because they expect you to be able to just recompile, and basically don't care if you can't. Windows 10 breaks backwards compatibility with a few very old games in a way that can be worked around, and everyone freaks. Linux breaks backwards compatibility with a two-year old application with the next major version of something, and everyone just shrugs and accepts it as normal.

That is why Windows is better than Linux for gaming. Well, unless you're playing open source games, in which case it's probably on par with Windows. But how many developers do you think want to open-source their games? Probably not many.
 
Last edited:
athenian200 said:
I bought that line in 2000 when Loki started making a lot of Linux ports of popular games. I thought Linux might become the gaming platform of choice back then. Now fast forward 16 years later, and I'm fighting with Red Hat 6.3 VMs that don't work to avoid dealing with the mess that is SimCity 3000 compatibility on modern Linux. Ultimately, I was told that VMs don't support such old versions of Linux and rely heavily on having supported guest additions. Someone very nearly talked me into buying a $200 Pentium II machine by trying to convince me it couldn't be done on modern hardware. In the end, I had to run it on a modern 32-bit version of Linux and deal with that painfully complex cocktail of console commands and library compatibility patches on top of patches. Took me days to get it working, and I have to modprobe load the OSS module to get sound and enter a really long command everytime I want to play. Even then, the intro screen is weird and translucent.

Do my friends who got Windows copies of the game have this issue? No, apparently it still works perfectly on Windows with nothing more than an old version of DirectX and a few compatibility settings. Linux people have this attitude that anything that's closed source deserves to die and break compatibility with binaries all the time because they expect you to be able to just recompile, and basically don't care if you can't. Windows 10 breaks backwards compatibility with a few very old games in a way that can be worked around, and everyone freaks. Linux breaks backwards compatibility with a two-year old application with the next major version of something, and everyone just shrugs and accepts it as normal.

That is why Windows is better than Linux for gaming. Well, unless you're playing open source games, in which case it's probably on par with Windows. But how many developers do you think want to open-source their games? Probably not many.
Click to expand...

And back in the mid to late 80's early 90's anyone who thought the Wintel platform was a viable gamer would have been laughed into the street considering the foothold the Motorola 68k platform had in the market and the pathetic excuse for games available on the Wintel platform...

...My how times change....

And the situation today is nothing like 2k and your harping on about GNU/Linux over some experience with a largely incompatible with a modern distro, cobbled together game on a VM does nothing to substantiate your cause - Of course you're going to be largely bound up in the terminal and bash commands!

These days downloading a game via Steam and installing it on your Linux box is no more painful than installing the same game under Windows, and in my experience running proprietary Linux drivers under Nvidia hardware the performance is fantastic. Hell, you can even download Steam and many other items of software as a .deb package and install them the same way you would install a .msi package under Windows, otherwise you can install using apt - A process that is also, not rocket science. Why would a developer need to even consider making their code FOSS?

And I'm not one of those open source fanatics, I run plenty of software under Linux that is proprietary and cross platform across all operating systems - In fact, I run Windows, Linux and OSX machines daily and enjoy them all. Why limit yourself to one OS only?
 
BulletDust said:
These days downloading a game via Steam and installing it on your Linux box is no more painful than installing the same game under Windows, and in my experience running proprietary Linux drivers under Nvidia hardware the performance is fantastic. Hell, you can even download Steam and many other items of software as a .deb package and install them the same way you would install a .msi package under Windows, otherwise you can install using apt - A process that is also, not rocket science. Why would a developer need to even consider making their code FOSS?
Click to expand...

Interesting point. I do have a Linux machine, and I do occasionally play Portal on it... but only because Value has very, very generous licensing terms. Basically, if I have, say, Half-Life on Steam, then I can get it for any Steam-supported platform they've released it for.

I don't know that other game developers will do this, though. I think a lot of them require you to buy a copy of the game for every platform you want to play it on. For instance, Ubisoft won't let me download Assassin's Creed IV for Windows even though I own a copy on the Wii U (which would be nice because they didn't give Wii U any of the DLC). They know very well that I own it, I registered it, everything shows up in my uPlay account... but they just expect you to buy another copy of the same game if you want to play it on a different platform.

Now, IF other game developers decide to sell people a multi-platform license like Valve is doing with their own games, I might take a chance. But I'm never going to pay money for a closed-source game on Linux unless I know that I can get a Windows version of the game I paid for as a failsafe. Well, of course, obviously if it gets to the point that AAA titles are released on Linux and not on Windows, I wouldn't stick to that. I'm talking about right now.
 
Last edited:
athenian200 said:
Interesting point. I do have a Linux machine, and I do occasionally play Portal on it... but only because Value has very, very generous licensing terms. Basically, if I have, say, Half-Life on Steam, then I can get it for any Steam-supported platform they've released it for.

I don't know that other game developers will do this, though. I think a lot of them require you to buy a copy of the game for every platform you want to play it on. For instance, Ubisoft won't let me download Assassin's Creed IV for Windows even though I own a copy on the Wii U (which would be nice because they didn't give Wii U any of the DLC). They know very well that I own it, I registered it, everything shows up in my uPlay account... but they just expect you to buy another copy of the same game if you want to play it on a different platform.

Now, IF other game developers decide to sell people a multi-platform license like Valve is doing with their own games, I might take a chance. But I'm never going to pay money for a closed-source game on Linux unless I know that I can get a Windows version of the game I paid for as a failsafe.
Click to expand...

Linux isn't the big bad terminal it once was, the desktop is actually quite elegant in many Distro's, and if it isn't elegant enough you can customize it until it's exactly what you want. People say that the weakness of the Linux desktop is it's lack of conformity across distro's, personally, I see that as the platforms strength - Imagine being able to run the exact Windows 7 desktop, but with the Windows 10 operating system, or vice versa? Then there'd be no more bitching about what's better! What these people fail to understand is that the underlying conformity is there, it's presence is enough to allow for familiarisation with the OS and it's functionality, it's just not forced on the user as a form of entrapment.

And I totally agree, Valves open licencing regarding it's own Source/Source 2 based games is absolutely fantastic! You own the licence for the software, why can't that licence transfer to whatever platform your running it on? And I've always had a soft spot for Source 2 based games, and in my experience they perform better under Linux on Nvidia drivers/hardware than they do under Windows.

As stated, I don't see why anyone would want to lock themselves down to one OS, as no one OS is perfect. Why not branch out, explore new things, support something good and get a Linux box up and running with a few Valve titles? After all, the OS is free. Just understand, there will be a period of adjustment - Personally, I enjoy the challenge of learning new things.

No point being a fanboi.
 
BulletDust said:
Linux isn't the big bad terminal it once was, the desktop is actually quite elegant in many Distro's, and if it isn't elegant enough you can customize it until it's exactly what you want. People say that the weakness of the Linux desktop is it's lack of conformity across distro's, personally, I see that as the platforms strength - Imagine being able to run the exact Windows 7 desktop, but with the Windows 10 operating system, or vice versa? Then there'd be no more bitching about what's better! What these people fail to understand is that the underlying conformity is there, it's presence is enough to allow for familiarisation with the OS and it's functionality, it's just not forced on the user as a form of entrapment.
Click to expand...

Ah, I actually like the terminal. It's just that this application is particularly bad even by the standards of someone that likes Vi and is used to dealing with the terminal. I mean, first you have to try to install the software, but the shell script is broken, so you have to copy over two files manually and create the symlinks the installer should have created. The two files it doesn't copy, by the way, are the main executable files needed to run the game. That's just what you need to even get the game to throw an error message.


And I totally agree, Valves open licencing regarding it's own Source/Source 2 based games is absolutely fantastic! You own the licence for the software, why can't that licence transfer to whatever platform your running it on?
Click to expand...

That would be a great model for phones too. Think about it... suppose you're on iOS or Android and you've purchased a lot of apps... you're "inside" one party's ecosystem. Suppose for argument's sake that all the apps you've paid for are available for another platform, but you'd have to buy them a second time. People stay with whichever one they picked initially because of that sunk cost. But if app developers could find a way to offer you the other version of whatever you already own when you move platforms, it would make switching back and forth a lot easier.
As stated, I don't see why anyone would want to lock themselves down to one OS, as no one OS is perfect. Why not branch out, explore new things, support something good and get a Linux box up and running with a few Valve titles? After all, the OS is free. Just understand, there will be a period of adjustment - Personally, I enjoy the challenge of learning new things.

No point being a fanboi.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not saying I don't like Linux or think Windows is perfect. Not at all. I'm just saying that backwards compatibility isn't Linux's strong suit. That certainly doesn't mean Linux is bad... it just means that it's better not to become too dependent on a specific version of anything that you can't recompile on a platform where they're more than willing to break something that used to work if it means that everything that they do in the future will now work better. Relentless, merciless improvement. I would use Linux before Windows on a server or an embedded system, and it's even a good basic desktop OS if you don't care about gaming.

There are things Linux does better than Windows. For instance, I have an old Plasma television set with a 16:9 ratio, but a 1024x768 resolution (rectangular pixels). Most programs are stupid and treat it like it's a 4:3 television set and letterbox everything. But under Linux, I can use trickery with Xrandr to make it act like I have a 1366x768 desktop, and squeeze it into a 1024x768 space. This makes everything look less fat, and enables movies to play correctly. It looks better than an anamorphic DVD because it actually uses the full resolution of the TV. Windows, on the other hand... can't do this at all, and I'm stuck with it being treated like a 4:3 monitor in letterbox mode. So Linux is better than Windows for watching movies on that television set.
 
athenian200 said:
Ah, I actually like the terminal. It's just that this application is particularly bad even by the standards of someone that likes Vi and is used to dealing with the terminal. I mean, first you have to try to install the software, but the shell script is broken, so you have to copy over two files manually and create the symlinks the installer should have created. The two files it doesn't copy, by the way, are the main executable files needed to run the game. That's just what you need to even get the game to throw an error message.




That would be a great model for phones too. Think about it... suppose you're on iOS or Android and you've purchased a lot of apps... you're "inside" one party's ecosystem. Suppose for argument's sake that all the apps you've paid for are available for another platform, but you'd have to buy them a second time. People stay with whichever one they picked initially because of that sunk cost. But if app developers could find a way to offer you the other version of whatever you already own when you move platforms, it would make switching back and forth a lot easier.


Oh, I'm not saying I don't like Linux or think Windows is perfect. Not at all. I'm just saying that backwards compatibility isn't Linux's strong suit. That certainly doesn't mean Linux is bad... it just means that it's better not to become too dependent on a specific version of anything that you can't recompile on a platform where they're more than willing to break something that used to work if it means that everything that they do in the future will now work better. Relentless, merciless improvement. I would use Linux before Windows on a server or an embedded system, and it's even a good basic desktop OS if you don't care about gaming.

There are things Linux does better than Windows. For instance, I have an old Plasma television set with a 16:9 ratio, but a 1024x768 resolution (rectangular pixels). Most programs are stupid and treat it like it's a 4:3 television set and letterbox everything. But under Linux, I can use trickery with Xrandr to make it act like I have a 1366x768 desktop, and squeeze it into a 1024x768 space. This makes everything look less fat, and enables movies to play correctly. It looks better than an anamorphic DVD because it actually uses the full resolution of the TV. Windows, on the other hand... can't do this at all, and I'm stuck with it being treated like a 4:3 monitor in letterbox mode. So Linux is better than Windows for watching movies on that television set.
Click to expand...

As stated, I use all platforms, I have to as I need to be familiar enough with them that I can repair all platforms - However one thing I've never understood is the fascination with OS X. Yes, it's a pretty OS, but seriously Finder sucks. Not only that but transferring files using a HDD formatted in NTFS is a right PIA! How the hell is it possible in this day and age for an OS to be so limited in relation to reading and writing to one of the most common file systems out there? Linux can read, write as well as format NTFS partitions just fine, why the hell is OSX so limited in this regard!

I have to say, OS X has it's strengths, but I find Linux a far more capable platform. Not only that, but my Linux desktop looks far better than my OS X desktop with better animations!
 
Windows 10 sucks.

<runs as fast as muh legs will carry me far far away from dis place...> :D
 
This forum has gotten very quiet lately?
Click to expand...

Coooos'... [sing to wizard of Oz tune]

We're off to use Win Seven, the wonderful wizard of OS [Oz].
Because because because becaaaaause...
Because of the wonderful things that it does.

:p
 
I moved on from Windows 7 and use Windows 10 strictly for gaming now. Works well for games.

For work and everything else I've moved on to OSX & Linux. Never thought I'd see that happen, but that's just how it goes I guess.
 
Arguing about Windows 10 is exactly like arguing about a million ton pile of shit.

It serves no purpose, everyone already knows it's crap, and hanging around only means you have to put up with the stink.
 
Chas said:
Arguing about Windows 10 is exactly like arguing about a million ton pile of shit.

It serves no purpose, everyone already knows it's crap, and hanging around only means you have to put up with the stink.
Click to expand...

Who is this "everyone"? I daresay it's more like a vocal minority that shouts down anyone who disagrees.

There's definitely room for debate on whether Windows 10 has value as an upgrade for Windows 7. It certainly alleviates the central complaint about Windows 8, which involved the lack of a start menu.

I think Yakk makes an interesting point, though. Eventually, if you don't want to upgrade to the newest version of Windows, maybe it's time to use something else like Linux or OS X.

I mean, sure, there's no rush because there aren't that many DirectX 12 games and Windows 7 will receive security updates until 2020, but it would still be wise to make a decision before that time. Sometime in the next four years, a choice will have to be made.
 
Last edited:
A lot of forums like this are seeing lower participation with the slower hardware releases this past year or so plus the lack of competition. Fan-boys have nothing to fight about and I'm not saying that in a bad way.
 
athenian200 said:
Who is this "everyone"? I daresay it's more like a vocal minority that shouts down anyone who disagrees.
Click to expand...

Yet you immediately jumped on me for hyperbolic language.

There's definitely room for debate on whether Windows 10 has value as an upgrade for Windows 7. It certainly alleviates the central complaint about Windows 8, which involved the lack of a start menu.
Click to expand...

The Start menu issue was simply one bullet point (albeit the front runner) on a greater overall issue with the UI as a whole.
 
Chas said:
Yet you immediately jumped on me for hyperbolic language.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that was uncalled for. I didn't mean to be nasty about it or jump down your throat. I'm just annoyed that people keep insisting that Windows 10 being garbage is somehow an obvious or objective truth.

The Start menu issue was simply one bullet point (albeit the front runner) on a greater overall issue with the UI as a whole.
Click to expand...

Well, people didn't like the Charms bar either, and Microsoft got rid of that as well. Metro apps took up the whole screen and had limited ability to be snapped, now they can run in a resizable Window like normal applications. That's at least three complaints about the UI Microsoft has addressed. I'm not too sure what else people take issue with in regards to the look and feel? Cortana can be disabled, if that's the issue.

Maybe they should just bring back the Windows Classic theme and make it look exactly like 7. It seems like that's what it would take to get people on board.
 
athenian200 said:
I

It's really just not worth the argument, because people always come around eventually. They hate change, but eventually there will be an application or a piece of hardware they want that requires a newer Windows, and that's when they'll probably give in. They're all going to cave at various times depending on how stubborn they are.
Click to expand...

I don't hate change, I hate dirty spies is why I refuse to install Win10.
 
rezerekted said:
I don't hate change, I hate dirty spies is why I refuse to install Win10.
Click to expand...

Telling somebody you don't agree with that "they just hate change" is a cop out when they don't have a good counter argument. Especially with something as subjective as a UI. There is no right or wrong, just opinions but that doesn't lessen their points as it still affect's their wallets (purchasing choices) the same as cold hard facts.
 
Bowman15 said:
Telling somebody you don't agree with that "they just hate change" is a cop out when they don't have a good counter argument. Especially with something as subjective as a UI. There is no right or wrong, just opinions but that doesn't lessen their points as it still affect's their wallets (purchasing choices) the same as cold hard facts.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly going on my experience with people who buy new computers and seem annoyed that they have to learn something new. It's often not that they don't like the interface after they learn where everything is, it's that they don't want to take the time to learn it. If I take the time to show people how to use even Windows 8 and try to help them adjust, they often end up liking it just as well once they can do everything with it they could do with Windows 7.

To be fair, that might not be the reason why people on this forum take issue with 10, because people here are a little more informed, but the average person complaining about it is generally trying to resist learning about something that's different from what they know. And it's always been the case... there were people that didn't want to use Windows because they were used to DOS back in the day. Perhaps it's dismissive of me to assume that's what's driving most people to resist a new product, but it seems like it's the most common reason.

To be honest, I think Microsoft should just concede defeat on the UI issue and let people use whatever they want while just updating the backend and adding new features. They actually have a really nice backend with some good features, but people don't appreciate it because all they can see at first is the new UI and Metro that pisses them off, which colors their opinion on everything else. I think opening up the possibility of replacing the Explorer shell with something else wouldn't be a bad idea. You're right about UI being subjective, so they should probably just let people use whatever they like on the latest version of Windows.

I think that's where the Windows as a service thing is going to end up. Instead of buying new versions of Windows, you just buy extensions on support and access to updates to the existing version indefinitely. You buy a Service Pack every 3 to 5 years, and you're good.
 
Last edited:
athenian200 said:
Perhaps that was uncalled for. I didn't mean to be nasty about it or jump down your throat. I'm just annoyed that people keep insisting that Windows 10 being garbage is somehow an obvious or objective truth.

Well, people didn't like the Charms bar either, and Microsoft got rid of that as well. Metro apps took up the whole screen and had limited ability to be snapped, now they can run in a resizable Window like normal applications. That's at least three complaints about the UI Microsoft has addressed. I'm not too sure what else people take issue with in regards to the look and feel? Cortana can be disabled, if that's the issue.

Maybe they should just bring back the Windows Classic theme and make it look exactly like 7. It seems like that's what it would take to get people on board.
Click to expand...

MS didn't "address" the start menu or charms bar. They were dragged kicking and screaming into changing things by the Enterprise segment, the only one with any real muscle to get them to pull their heads out.

No, 10 doesn't need to look "exactly like 7" to get people on board - that's just willful ignorance of legitimate complaints about 10. Giving people a real OFF switch for data collection, or giving back users some control over which updates are installed instead of just everything force fed, would go a long way.

No, Cortana isn't actually disabled if you "disable" it. There's still a running process visible that survives reboots.

To my eyes it's not that 10 is "garbage" if one puts the telemetry and forced updates issue aside, there just isn't anything compelling or must-have over 8.1 or 7 - there is no killer feature or app or real reason to run it other than to be on the latest OS marketing campaign. DX12 is a bust so far and games won't be designed DX12-only for years. Deprecation of Win32 in favor of XAML also makes everything feel less responsive and snappy than 8.1 and earlier.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
No, 10 doesn't need to look "exactly like 7" to get people on board - that's just willful ignorance of legitimate complaints about 10. Giving people a real spying OFF switch, or giving back users some control over which updates are installed instead of just everything force fed, would go a long way.
Click to expand...

I was addressing complaints about the UI, if you want to talk about telemetry and updates that's another matter entirely. The thing is, it's really not very secure to let people pick and choose updates anymore. For one thing, it makes pirating the OS easier because they can just turn off the updates that would validate the installation and re-patch anything that disabled activation. It would make pirates work a lot harder, if they wanted to do it at all. On top of that, there were far too many people that would just disable updates so that they don't get "bothered" while they're doing something, and then when someone hacks them using a known vulnerability, people blame Microsoft for that instead of the user, even though they already patched it. While I can see why a lot of people don't like this, I can also see exactly why Microsoft took this approach. Most people tend to think, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and won't even bother with critical updates if they aren't forced to do so.
No, Cortana isn't actually disabled if you "disable" it. There's still a running process afterward that survives reboots.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the Cortana functionality exposed to the user, not the process. Perhaps I should have qualified that statement. If you want to disable THAT, you would of course have to go into the services editor and do a few more things. Admittedly, that would be kind of a pain for someone that didn't know how. Most recent versions of Windows (including 7 and Vista) enable lots of services to run in the background by default, just so that their functionality can be activated quickly without a restart if someone decides to enable them... most don't realize how many, and Cortana is just one of several.
To my eyes it's not that 10 is "garbage" if one puts the telemetry and forced updates issue aside, there just isn't anything compelling or must-have over 8.1 or 7 - there is no killer feature or app or real reason to run it other than to be on the latest OS marketing campaign. DX12 is a bust so far and games won't be designed DX12-only for years.
Click to expand...

DirectX 12 is still pretty new, and some games still use DirectX 9. I wouldn't expect adoption that quickly, and especially not as DX12 only... but I'm thinking we might see some games perform better with DX12 if it takes advantage of new capabilities. I think it would probably take a killer app that people really, really want from the Windows Store to make people want to upgrade from 7. There really isn't enough stuff yet that works well on 10 that doesn't work on 7.

This telemetry and forced updates thing is really not the most common reason I've personally heard for people disliking Windows 10. By and large, a lot of people are concerned about application incompatibility and the interface being different. There are also some people who don't want it because it doesn't include Windows Media Center, and I think that's probably the best excuse for not upgrading. It was superior to pretty much everything else out there.

But so far, I've actually tried running a lot of the games people claim don't work on Windows 10... and most of them work with compatibility settings applied. Sometimes all you have to do is reinstall the game and it just works. SecuROM doesn't work on some older CD-ROM based games (likely the origin of the idea that games don't work on Windows 10), but it's pretty easy to remove SecuROM DRM, which is why no one uses it anymore. Incidentally, SecuROM is also a security risk to have enabled. A lot of people claiming that their Windows 7 applications don't work haven't tried very hard. They just start it up, get an error message or something, and start raging.
 
athenian200 said:
Maybe they should just bring back the Windows Classic theme and make it look exactly like 7. It seems like that's what it would take to get people on board.
Click to expand...

Again, the problem is not the "theme". A theme or a general "look and feel" is trivial.

The problem is the broken, segregated, obfuscated UI.

Take adding a local Windows user.

It used to be that you'd go into the Control Panel to the user manager and add a user. Worst you'd have to do is flip them over to "Administrator" if they needed the permissions.

Now, you go to the user manager, and it flips you over into a Metro app where it tries really REALLY hard to have you just create an Online user and tries to hide or misdirect you away from creating a local user with a badly worded, totally unhelpful interface.

Then, if you need to elevate their permissions, you have to go back to the user manager again.

That's some flat-out bullshit.

Don't even get me started on the wifi management...
 
Chas said:
The problem is the broken, segregated, obfuscated UI.

Take adding a local Windows user.

It used to be that you'd go into the Control Panel to the user manager and add a user. Worst you'd have to do is flip them over to "Administrator" if they needed the permissions.

Now, you go to the user manager, and it flips you over into a Metro app where it tries really REALLY hard to have you just create an Online user and tries to hide or misdirect you away from creating a local user with a badly worded, totally unhelpful interface.

Then, if you need to elevate their permissions, you have to go back to the user manager again.

That's some flat-out bullshit.

Don't even get me started on the wifi management...
Click to expand...

Okay, now that's something I would never have thought of, because I pretty much always use a Microsoft account anyway so that all my settings will sync between PCs. Also, I usually do that kind of stuff in PowerShell and don't touch the GUI when I'm adding multiple users. But that's a legitimate complaint.

If an app has unclear wording or makes it difficult to access certain functionality, that's something that should be remedied. Selecting user permissions and the type of account is something that should be fairly easy. I'm guessing they didn't put a lot effort into it because they assumed it would only be used during Windows setup, and didn't realize that people would actually need the GUI afterwards to add other users.

After looking at it, yeah, I'd agree they need to fix it.
 
If I hated change I wouldn't be using Win8.1 even though I have a copy of Win7 sitting here. I installed Classicshell though so it is even more functional (for me) then the Win7 StartMenu. I even use Metro for quick access to my most used stuff because it is better than having icons all over my desktop or task bar. I dislike a cluttered desktop.
 
rezerekted said:
If I hated change I wouldn't be using Win8.1 even though I have a copy of Win7 sitting here. I installed Classicshell though so it is even more functional (for me) then the Win7 StartMenu. I even use Metro for quick access to my most used stuff because it is better than having icons all over my desktop or task bar. I dislike a cluttered desktop.
Click to expand...

My rant about people hating change was not directed towards you personally, but rather a lot of people whose computer problems I deal with on a regular basis.

Your reason for disliking Windows 10 involved telemetry that communicates data back to Microsoft, correct?

I've really never understood why anyone would trust Microsoft at all in that case... if Microsoft really wanted to spy on you, they could shove spyware into just about any Windows security update and make that update a condition of getting any future updates. And they probably wouldn't have tied it to something as obvious as Windows 10 nagware... they could embed it in something really subtle that you wouldn't even see or think to check for years, because they know the OS inside and out. If I thought Microsoft was out to get me, I would probably stop using Windows altogether... or at least IP block all the known update and telemetry servers using an external firewall that isn't running Windows until I could stop.

It's good to be vigilant about privacy, but the problem is that hackers will constantly try to compromise that privacy, and you generally have to trust Microsoft or another software vendor to help protect you with vulnerability patches and updates. If you also distrust your OS vendor, then you're getting to a point where you have to personally review all the code that goes into your OS and the updates. I know some Linux users that do this very thing because they don't want to trust any major corporation or the government, and have been paranoid about PRISM and NSA backdoors since before the Snowden leaks. The question is, if you don't trust Microsoft, then who do you want to trust instead? Do you know enough about security and programming to trust yourself? Do you know anyone that you do trust? An individual or a corporation that could replace Microsoft's role?

Personally, I choose to trust Microsoft more than I trust hackers trying to get into my computer. Sure, that may be a leap of faith on my part, but you have to believe in something or someone to keep from going insane and cutting off your Internet connection to go live alone in the woods with no cell phones. For all I know, the people speaking ill of Windows 10 could be trying to keep people on less secure versions of Windows that are easier to hack. Maybe they're on Apple's payroll to generate all this FUD. Who knows? The point is, you can't REALLY completely trust anyone... including the people who are trying to convince you not to trust Microsoft. You should treat them with the same scrutiny you would treat Microsoft with, and ask yourself what their motivations and agendas are. Who is to say that their motivations are any better than Microsoft's? Do they actually know what data Microsoft is gathering and that it's inappropriate? Or do they just know that it's unknown, and want to play on your fear of unknown personal information being shared with others?

I'm not saying that you're wrong. Perhaps you're right to distrust Microsoft. But once you start down that rabbit hole, it's only a matter of time before you're one of those people using Tor Browser on a Hardened version of Linux with multiple VPN subscriptions doing all your transactions via Bitcoin that thinks the government is out to get you. I personally think life is too short to be THAT guy, if you know what I mean. If those people are right, maybe I don't want to know.
 
I suspect you and heatlessun are one in the same. If you are not, I suspect you two having sex with each other very, very soon.
 
athenian200 said:
I've really never understood why anyone would trust Microsoft at all in that case... if Microsoft really wanted to spy on you, they could shove spyware into just about any Windows security update and make that update a condition of getting any future updates. And they probably wouldn't have tied it to something as obvious as Windows 10 nagware... they could embed it in something really subtle that you wouldn't even see or think to check for years, because they know the OS inside and out. If I thought Microsoft was out to get me, I would probably stop using Windows altogether... or at least IP block all the known update and telemetry servers using an external firewall that isn't running Windows until I could stop.
Click to expand...

It's not about Microsoft "out to get" anyone, but I realize that's the lazy strawman invariably brought up in discussions like this. It's about data collection with no off switch not belonging in a paid, retail OS. If Microsoft wants to data collect, they need to add value to the OS and give people a reason to tolerate it and opt-in, not OPT IN BY DEFAULT with no way out.

To the eyes of many people hanging back on 7 and 8.1, MS has failed to create that value in any demonstrable way, and shitty XAML phone apps sure aren't vaulting people over the fascination threshold.
 
Last edited:
Shotglass01 said:
I suspect you and heatlessun are one in the same. If you are not, I suspect you two having sex with each other very, very soon.
Click to expand...

LOL! I say a lot less about Windows 10 than many of the bashers around here and I actually use it constantly. If one doesn't like then they don't like it. Plain and simple. For the things I do with my devices, Windows 7 isn't an option and 8.1 starting to get left behind. If there were options that could do what 10 does I'd love to try them out.
 
athenian200 said:
I'm not saying that you're wrong. Perhaps you're right to distrust Microsoft. But once you start down that rabbit hole, it's only a matter of time before you're one of those people using Tor Browser on a Hardened version of Linux with multiple VPN subscriptions doing all your transactions via Bitcoin that thinks the government is out to get you. I personally think life is too short to be THAT guy, if you know what I mean. If those people are right, maybe I don't want to know.
Click to expand...

I do have TAILS, never use it through, it's just there if I ever need it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top