• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Windows 9 Tech Preview Screenshots

rflcptr said:
battery life would have (not *could have*) taken a hit.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I do find it interesting that Apple supporters simply accept that and move on. Microsoft added Flash support to its tablets, both ARM and x86, but somehow many criticize Microsoft for trying to "own" the Windows software market because there's Windows Store. Though on x86 Windows devices there's also Steam, Origin, etc. And Flash support.
 
mope54 said:
Sorry to hear that you're still having problems with Flash and websites. I never have so wouldn't know what that's about.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean, Flash sites work fine on my Windows tablets. Windows 8.x has many flaws, web browsing isn't one of them.
 
heatlesssun said:
Perhaps. I do find it interesting that Apple supporters simply accept that and move on. Microsoft added Flash support to its tablets, both ARM and x86, but somehow many criticize Microsoft for trying to "own" the Windows software market because there's Windows Store. Though on x86 Windows devices there's also Steam, Origin, etc. And Flash support.
Click to expand...
1. people against Flash are not simply Apple supporters
and
2. your last point, that MS added Flash support yet has its own Store, undermines the argument that Flash support is/is not tied to protecting App Store sales. Obviously, from your own experience with MS, that's not true at all.

Again, rather than try and draw out this tired argument about the relevance of an antiquated software layer, the point I responded to was whether Apple decided to not implement Flash into iOS in order to sell more expensive flash games on its App Store << that argument is not even remotely accurate.
 
mope54 said:
1. people against Flash are not simply Apple supporters
and
2. your last point, that MS added Flash support yet has its own Store, undermines the argument that Flash support is/is not tied to protecting App Store sales. Obviously, from your own experience with MS, that's not true at all.
Click to expand...

I never said that all Flash opponents were Apple supporters. And you were the one that pointed out that Jobs said that blocking Flash was in part to protect Apple's App Store. So it's difficult to discern the point your trying to make here.

mope54 said:
Again, rather than try and draw out this tired argument about the relevance of an antiquated software layer, the point I responded to was whether Apple decided to not implement Flash into iOS in order to sell more expensive flash games on its App Store << that argument is not even remotely accurate.
Click to expand...

Again, you were the one that pointed out that Jobs himself said that blocking Flash was in part for the very purpose that you are saying here that it wasn't. Not trying to be critical but you've obviously contradicted yourself and you're point isn't at all clear.

Remember, this started with Candy Crush. If it's so crappy then why is essentially the same thing an app on iOS but Flash based on a PC or Mac? It's not because of touch, CC works perfectly with touch using Flash on a Windows tablet.
 
heatlesssun said:
I never said that all Flash opponents were Apple supporters. And you were the one that pointed out that Jobs said that blocking Flash was in part to protect Apple's App Store. So it's difficult to discern the point your trying to make here.



Again, you were the one that pointed out that Jobs himself said that blocking Flash was in part for the very purpose that you are saying here that it wasn't. Not trying to be critical but you've obviously contradicted yourself and you're point isn't at all clear.

Remember, this started with Candy Crush. If it's so crappy then why is essentially the same thing an app on iOS but Flash based on a PC or Mac? It's not because of touch, CC works perfectly with touch using Flash on a Windows tablet.
Click to expand...
No, I never said that Jobs intended to protect App Store revenue by limiting flash on iOS and selling crappy, over-priced apps on the App Store.

Quit conflating the concept of protecting revenue with other forms of protection.
Jobs states here https://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ what he thought about the Flash and Apple relationship. There isn't any reason for me to speak for him.

If you want to be obstinate about the issue, that's your prerogative.
 
heatlesssun said:
Perhaps. I do find it interesting that Apple supporters simply accept that and move on.
Click to expand...

perhaps? lol, "perhaps" there's a virtually endless pile of evidence out there verifying it? What I find interesting is your veiled condesenscion while dismissing the evidence and *not* moving on.
 
heatlesssun said:
Remember, this started with Candy Crush. If it's so crappy then why is essentially the same thing an app on iOS but Flash based on a PC or Mac?
Click to expand...
FYI, Candy Crush is free, and always has been, in the Apple Store.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
I would agree with this. I don't really care what's going on in the background so long as it is faster and more stable than the previous version. Things like black box and rain meter are vastly better looking ui. I particularly resented win 8 because of how much choice they tried to take away.
Click to expand...

thelead said:
All you said is probably spot on BUT the simplicity is what made people think that the $5 dollars was worth it.

Although, I will say, I am of the belief that a properly coded app/program will always run better than a browser based solution.
Click to expand...

No people didn't think the app was worth it because of simplicity they had no other choice once they were locked into a 2 year contract with a $350 ETF on a phone with a plan. And the proof of that is painfully obvious. Once the carriers allowed android to come out and competed in the app space those same apps quickly fell in price to nothing and most can't do anything but go with free and ad based revenue now days. If simplicity is there why isn't everyone still dropping $5 a pop on android or ios?
 
Flash is a battery draining resource hog and a huge liability in general. But lets be honest, the only real reason Apple refuses to support it is because of their App store and protecting its massive profit from free flash games. Everything else is just a big lie to make it seem like they are protecting the user/consumer and have their best interest in mind. Apple never has their best interest in mind and loves screwing them over with their walled garden and proprietary everything.
 
mope54 said:
No, your opinion about this is incorrect.


A tutorial demonstrating the new features occurred during the OS install.
Click to expand...

You are welcome to be naive as long as you want most of us are not that stupid. There was no valid excuse for not allowing flash on ios other than locking people into and protecting the app store. In fact you know the motivation must have been that big because adobe was pretty much the only company that kept apple selling computers for years so to screw them in the back like that was pretty big.
 
ok, well don't let the fact that those games are all free on iOS and always have been punch a big hole in your "theory" there
 
mope54 said:
ok, well don't let the fact that those games are all free on iOS and always have been punch a big hole in your "theory" there
Click to expand...

Free with ADs, tons and tons of ADs, which Apple makes money from. Don't forget that fact.
 
lol, alright

so first it was that they did it to sell $5 dollar versions of the game; except when I pointed out the game is free, now they did it to protect their 30% ad revenue and generate foot traffic to the Apple App Store?

That's the reasoning you are going with that Flash wasn't integrated into iOS?
It's not because "Flash is a battery draining resource hog and a huge liability in general."
Adobe didn't produce something Apple thought was good enough.
Apple didn't want its App developers hamstrung by 3rd party developers like Adobe.

nope it's to secure a $5 dollar app that never existed and pull ad revenue...
how much cut from ads does Facebook take? Do you even know? Are you just pulling reasons out of a hat to try and rehash an argument that you already lost half a decade ago? Flash is dead. Long live Flash.
 
mope54 said:
ok, well don't let the fact that those games are all free on iOS and always have been punch a big hole in your "theory" there
Click to expand...

I didn't see anyone post a list of specific games so how could you know they are all free?
 
I just think that all possible negatives and benefits were likely weighed in the decision. As a company, each decision they make primarily comes down to profit, and it's just a matter of how much each variable in the decision effects this. One could argue that they never thought "How much will not including Flash effect the App store?", or that they figured that not including Flash would have a negative effect on the App store, but I'd find either to be a long shot :p
 
mope54 said:
lol, alright

so first it was that they did it to sell $5 dollar versions of the game; except when I pointed out the game is free, now they did it to protect their 30% ad revenue and generate foot traffic to the Apple App Store?

That's the reasoning you are going with that Flash wasn't integrated into iOS?
It's not because "Flash is a battery draining resource hog and a huge liability in general."
Adobe didn't produce something Apple thought was good enough.
Apple didn't want its App developers hamstrung by 3rd party developers like Adobe.

nope it's to secure a $5 dollar app that never existed and pull ad revenue...
how much cut from ads does Facebook take? Do you even know? Are you just pulling reasons out of a hat to try and rehash an argument that you already lost half a decade ago? Flash is dead. Long live Flash.
Click to expand...

Apple makes ALL of their decisions based on how much money it will make them and does not actually care about the user or that flash sucks. Why are you so determined to people otherwise?

Any sort of positive user experience such as battery life is merely a byproduct of profit driven motives and not the actual objective. If flash apps/games were not a threat to their app store Apple would have supported it. They would also support micro sd cards and micro usb ports if their entire goal wasn't to fleece their customers for overpriced everything.
 
I prefer the flat design of MS Office 2013 to previous versions of office, but I don't really like Win8.1's design compared to Windows 7.

I have 8.1 on my tablet and it works fine there, but for a desktop PC I much prefer Windows 7's Aero Glass design. I find it easier on the eyes and far less jarring. While colourful, Windows 8.1 somehow still seems drab.

Here's an excellent page on improving Windows 8.1. If you have a few minutes, watch the videos. He's done a great job at taking Microsoft's current design philosophy and incorporating it into a much more functional UI.

http://jaymachalani.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing-windows-8

Sorry if it's been posted already, I didn't see it when I skimmed through this thread.
 
Unknown-One said:
Resolved in Windows 8.1

All new user accounts are subjected to giant tutorial pop-ups the first time they use the system.
Click to expand...

thats good but the damage was already done, it is sort of like vista that by the time vista hit its last service pack it was a decent OS and its problems mainly resolved but noone would buy it at that point so they have to change the name.
 
chrcoluk said:
thats good but the damage was already done, it is sort of like vista that by the time vista hit its last service pack it was a decent OS and its problems mainly resolved but noone would buy it at that point so they have to change the name.
Click to expand...

7 was released over 2 1/2 years after Vista and had a lot of under the hood changes, mostly mid to minor but at that point a new OS version designation was in order regardless of Vista's PR problems.
 
ssbtech said:
I prefer the flat design of MS Office 2013 to previous versions of office, but I don't really like Win8.1's design compared to Windows 7.

I have 8.1 on my tablet and it works fine there, but for a desktop PC I much prefer Windows 7's Aero Glass design. I find it easier on the eyes and far less jarring. While colourful, Windows 8.1 somehow still seems drab.

Here's an excellent page on improving Windows 8.1. If you have a few minutes, watch the videos. He's done a great job at taking Microsoft's current design philosophy and incorporating it into a much more functional UI.

http://jaymachalani.com/blog/2013/12/12/fixing-windows-8

Sorry if it's been posted already, I didn't see it when I skimmed through this thread.
Click to expand...

This has been referenced quite a few places, I read over it before. Aesthetics aside for now, those are going to change and I have now idea what they'll be like, functionally the leaks thus far are very much in line with that this guy is saying. His Start Menu concept is functionally identical to the preview build leak. You can switch between the Start Screen and Start Menu, modern apps can be windowed, etc.
 
Thank goodness for them finally allowing modern apps to be in a window. It was a huge step back to have Windows programs not run inside a window like they did from like the 1930's until Windows 8 was released. Why change something that has like 80 years of proven okayness?
 
ICOM said:
Windows Classic
Click to expand...

This. They better include that ability. Is it available in windows 8 by chance? I'm guessing no or everyone would be using it.

Those windows look horrible, it looks like it's made in MS paint by a 5 year old. They brought the start menu back though so that's a start... no pun intended. :D

Just need Windows classic back now.

Meanwhile my company is FINALLY looking into moving from Windows XP to 7. They should wait to see what Windows 9 will be like and see if it's going to be viable for business use. I don't imagine any of the crappy corporate apps would work in it though. I don't even know if they'll work in 7, that's what they started to test recently.
 
tetris42 said:
I'm not sure even Microsoft knows what they'll be like.
Click to expand...

Probably not entirely as I think this release will incorporate quite a bit more feedback than either 7 or 8 as that wasn't Sinofsky's style. Like the UI functionality I would expect there to be something of a middle ground between the ultra flat style of the current modern UI and something like Aero glass.
 
Please for the love of all that is holy DON'T bring Classic mode back! It looked ugly then and will ook uglier now.
 
Red Squirrel said:
This. They better include that ability. Is it available in windows 8 by chance? I'm guessing no or everyone would be using it.
Click to expand...
Windows Classic and "Aero Basic" were both removed in Windows 8, and for good reason.

Windows 8 supports running DWM with software acceleration, which means even the lowliest PC with no video driver get a non-degraded visual experience.

The only reason Windows 7 has Classic and Aero Basic is because they don't need hardware acceleration. Now that DWM can run without hardware acceleration, there's simply no point in them.

Also, why bloat the codebase with 3 separate (and redundant) skinning engines? :eek:
 
Unknown-One said:
Windows Classic and "Aero Basic" were both removed in Windows 8, and for good reason.

Windows 8 supports running DWM with software acceleration, which means even the lowliest PC with no video driver get a non-degraded visual experience.

The only reason Windows 7 has Classic and Aero Basic is because they don't need hardware acceleration. Now that DWM can run without hardware acceleration, there's simply no point in them.

Also, why bloat the codebase with 3 separate (and redundant) skinning engines? :eek:
Click to expand...

Because Windows 8 is ugly as hell? :D
 
I really hope there will be some honest improvements with Windows 9.
If not, Windows 7 really will be the next XP.
 
Is Windows 9 going to be subscription based like Office 365?
 
chrcoluk said:
There is still a point if you like those user styles.
Click to expand...
Those weren't really intended as styles, though. Windows 7 used them as fallbacks if DWM failed or couldn't run.

Now that DMN works on ANY hardware, these fallback rendering modes are no-longer required.

If you want a different visual style, there's no need for Basic or Classic. DWM-based themes work just like they did in Windows 7, which has an active skinning community.
 
Unknown-One said:
Those weren't really intended as styles, though. Windows 7 used them as fallbacks if DWM failed or couldn't run.

Now that DMN works on ANY hardware, these fallback rendering modes are no-longer required.

If you want a different visual style, there's no need for Basic or Classic. DWM-based themes work just like they did in Windows 7, which has an active skinning community.
Click to expand...

Couldn't of said it better myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top