Joey_sw wrote:

yeah but: Microsoft reserves the right to remove existing applications on Windows 8 devices (which not just the tablet, but also […]
Show full quote

Windows store

yeah but:
Microsoft reserves the right to remove existing applications on Windows 8 devices (which not just the tablet, but also includes your Windows 8 PC)
AND
MS does NOT accept any responsibility regarding preventing data loss as a result of the application removal in Windows 8 devices,
AND
MS eglibe to do that WITHOUT any user's direction.

That plain-ly stated in Windows Store's Term of Use.
So, yeah to use windows store, you must aggre to Term of Use, which put your computer at mercy of the Redmondians.

Yet, under that Term of Use, MS doesn't state what apps or data that they can't / won't removes at their own choosing.
Somewhere in Windows 8, there must be already exist code to implement that "Apps Removals" by Windows Store's commands.

Oh, so in other words if you use the Windows store and it finds a copy of Firefox or Chrome installed on your computer they can delete it and replace it with Internet Explorer WITHOUT getting your permission first?

Screw that. I'll go to Ubuntu before taking Win8. Heck, I'd go Mac just to spite.

Malik wrote:

Sooner or later all Windows users will be forced to migrate to Windows 8 anyway, whether one likes it or not.

If they keep cranking out new versions at the current rate then not necessarily. I went directly from XP to Win 7, skipping Vista.

The supposed "tech" company I work for is still using XP for our desktops, with no end in sight. We haven't been in a "you must upgrade or nothing will work" situation for a long time with Windows, since 98 -> XP?

boy I wrote about 10 pages of rant on all this earlier today but decided not to post it 😜

let's just say I am very, very, very unhappy with the direction computers in general are going

badmofo wrote:

Malik wrote:

Sooner or later all Windows users will be forced to migrate to Windows 8 anyway, whether one likes it or not.

If they keep cranking out new versions at the current rate then not necessarily. I went directly from XP to Win 7, skipping Vista.

The supposed "tech" company I work for is still using XP for our desktops, with no end in sight. We haven't been in a "you must upgrade or nothing will work" situation for a long time with Windows, since 98 -> XP?

your company is going to 7 or 8 kicking and screaming, whether they want to or not... sooner or later...
XP extended support is ending in 2 years, which means thereafter, there will be NO updates for it and it will be wide open for viruses/exploits to royally screw things up... your company will also epic fail security audits due to the fact they are running outdated software

like it or not, the newer windows are much more secure and stable compared to the old ones, that is a given fact

the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" phrase is so misused in the computing world it's not even funny... there's a reason why we have patch tuesdays, there's a reason why there's new versions of whatever software that comes out... it's to FIX issues as much as selling as new products..... obviously, software companies make no money giving us free updates, especially for aging software that becomes too hard to fix and becomes inefficient or incompatible with new hardware, that's why they WANT to sell us newer software and provide finite product support life

My reply to security concerns is simple - don't put it on the frickin internet. Every computer in every office does NOT have to be on the internet. This whole idea that everything has to be connected is making us (as a country) wide open to attacks.

What bothers me is that the requirements for operating systems get higher and higher . While this is normal , some OS just suddenly bump hardware requirements up by a good few notches .
For example :
Windows 8 needs

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-id/windows-8/faq wrote:

Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit) Hard disk space: 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB ( […]
Show full quote

Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster
RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)
Hard disk space: 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM driver

Seriously Microsoft , WTF

Lets take a look at the sys req for Ubutu a heavier linux distro

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements wrote:

700 MHz processor (about Intel Celeron or better) 512 MiB RAM (system memory) 5 GB of hard-drive space (or USB stick, memory car […]
Show full quote

700 MHz processor (about Intel Celeron or better)
512 MiB RAM (system memory)
5 GB of hard-drive space (or USB stick, memory card or external drive but see LiveCD for an alternative approach)
VGA capable of 1024x768 screen resolution
Either a CD/DVD drive or a USB port for the installer media

That is already a LOT better

Now lets look for an recent OS that has really low sys req namely DSL

http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/frequently_asked_questions.html#Will_DSL_ever_get_bigger_than_50_MBytes.3F wrote:

i486
24 MB RAM

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!

Another thing that bothers me to no end is that Microsoft tries to hide all the advances options and the metro interface , oops i mean Windows 8 interface (we would not want to confuse the customer would we Microsoft) looks like a joke . It looks like a toy not like a tool .
It seems like Microsoft wants to make sure that the user can't "hurt" him/her self by any means .

The only reason that i myself and many others have not yet switched to Linux is the lack of games .

just my 2 cents .

Sorry but I do not find the minimums out of ordinary and in fact rather lacking for a minimum.

So what kind of horsepower can you really get for cheap now a days if you are going to run Windows or Linux ?

Well a lot for not so much.

Maybe that is not your point but that is exactly the point for getting a current version of Windows.

Remember that the masses are not like most of us, they don't give a rats ass about retro games, hardware or the like 😉

In renaming the interface MS didn't have much of a choice or be in for a hurtfull legal battle

I do think Windows has lost the edge to Mac and has lost focus trying to get on top again with the focus on making everything more pretty rather than performance. I am so sick of waiting for the pretty icons to load on 2008, it’s a server it doesn’t need to have high res everything!

XP is still my preferred OS but realistically with, Apps demanding more memory and going 64 bit Windows 7 does make sense. Wireless loading before login (means you log onto the domain properly at start up) is also a big plus

I downgraded Vista PC’s back to XP at any company that would listen to me, it had some nice features but many more downsides.

Part of me thinks Vista was a marketing scam. Whatever came after XP never stood a chance. Vista was a scapegoat so when the more refined 7 came out peoples expectations were also not so high anymore.

I don’t get Windows 8? Microsoft is still king in the office so why push tablet touchscreen so hard? Keyboard and mouse are still going to be quicker for 99% of office desktop PC’s

In the end IT departments are forced to follow what the users want these days which means (and it pains me to say this) but I think Mac is the currant future, more and more are creeping into the office which means more and more business apps are being supported.

Who knows in a few years MS may just be a server OS in the cloud, Office 365 is a big step in that direction taking a big chunk of their SBS server market!

My rant over, still dont feel better 🙁

It's all a scam to keep companies like Microsoft and Intel in business. They COULD extend the life of any OS by releasing updates. What did XP do that win98 did not? What does win7 do that winxp did not? And I'd be willing to bet that office 97 still does what 99% of people need. But updates don't sell more licenses. Updates don't sell new computers. And we wonder why landfills are filling up with electronic waste.

ncmark wrote:

My reply to security concerns is simple - don't put it on the frickin internet. Every computer in every office does NOT have to be on the internet. This whole idea that everything has to be connected is making us (as a country) wide open to attacks.

half the attacks are indirectly initiated... meaning people going to websites and clicking on the wrong things or it automatically installs some crap on their computers, or people clicking on the wrong things in email

you can block off the internet, but people will still need email, with communication with the outside.... there will always be a possibility a virus will come in (no scanner is fool proof), and they too can infect company machines

going completely offline works, but it's hard to get any work done these days... you can have the most secure system in the world, and it'll be useless/unusable... security always has been about the right balance between both ends of the scale

The stuxnet virus supposedly managed to get into a network that wasn't connected to the Internet, so that method isn't foolproof.

I eventually want to switch completely to Linux since MS will be dropping support for XP in a couple of years, but the main thing holding that back for me is the lack of decent graphics drivers on Linux. What the Linux devs often forget is that people like to play GAMES, not just write code or surf the web.

ncmark wrote:

It's all a scam to keep companies like Microsoft and Intel in business. They COULD extend the life of any OS by releasing updates. What did XP do that win98 did not? What does win7 do that winxp did not? And I'd be willing to bet that office 97 still does what 99% of people need. But updates don't sell more licenses. Updates don't sell new computers. And we wonder why landfills are filling up with electronic waste.

they can and they can't at the same time.... there are some things they can't fix without significantly rewriting a huge chunk of code, and then there's a big possibility that it will break compatibility with a bunch of stuff, that's why they don't do it! it's not worth the risk and it doesn't make business sense to do it, even if they released it as a paid update because nobody would want to pay for something they can't really see

like I said, 7 is immensely more secure and stable than XP, usability is also much better than XP

7 is immensely more secure

that reminds me about 9x vs XP secure-ness debate.

one interresting topic raised by 9x supporter is about Remote-Registry Services,
which defaulted On/Active by most XP deployment/installation.

While theres use of that services in corporate environtment,
that also one of most abused services by malicious apps,
as those apps could modify (or wrecking) other windows's registries that connected in a local-network.

Those 9x supporter said something like that doesn't happen in usual 9x installation, unless it deliberately install the 9x version of remote registry.

I also find that typical win-7 installation also leaves this remote-registry services in activated states all the time.

BigBodZod wrote:

Sorry but I do not find the minimums out of ordinary and in fact rather lacking for a minimum. (snip)

I'm not saying that the sys req are to high for current hardware i'm saying that for something as an OS i just find it stupid . An OS is supposed to be a base for the programs that run on top of it if the OS eats up half of the resources that leaves less for power hungry programs .
If this was the only was then there would not be a problem but it can be quite different .

Dominus wrote:

In renaming the interface MS didn't have much of a choice or be in for a hurtfull legal battle

I'm quite aware that MS most likely changed the name in order to avoid a legal conflict with Metro AG

TheMAN wrote:

ncmark wrote:

It's all a scam to keep companies like Microsoft and Intel in business. They COULD extend the life of any OS by releasing updates. What did XP do that win98 did not? What does win7 do that winxp did not? And I'd be willing to bet that office 97 still does what 99% of people need. But updates don't sell more licenses. Updates don't sell new computers. And we wonder why landfills are filling up with electronic waste.

they can and they can't at the same time.... there are some things they can't fix without significantly rewriting a huge chunk of code, and then there's a big possibility that it will break compatibility with a bunch of stuff, that's why they don't do it! it's not worth the risk and it doesn't make business sense to do it, even if they released it as a paid update because nobody would want to pay for something they can't really see

like I said, 7 is immensely more secure and stable than XP, usability is also much better than XP

I agree with both of you . A large part of it is a scam to make money by forcing you to buy new hard/software .
Then there is competition , if one company slows down it will lose money and fall behind on the others so unless all competing companies slow down it wont happen.
Finally like the man said you can only update until a certain point when you have to rewrite large chunks of code and by doing that you are likely to break some other stuff .

Joey_sw wrote:

that reminds me about 9x vs XP secure-ness debate. […]
Show full quote

7 is immensely more secure

that reminds me about 9x vs XP secure-ness debate.

one interresting topic raised by 9x supporter is about Remote-Registry Services,
which defaulted On/Active by most XP deployment/installation.

While theres use of that services in corporate environtment,
that also one of most abused services by malicious apps,
as those apps could modify (or wrecking) other windows's registries that connected in a local-network.

Those 9x supporter said something like that doesn't happen in usual 9x installation, unless it deliberately install the 9x version of remote registry.

I also find that typical win-7 installation also leaves this remote-registry services in activated states all the time.

the two things that comes to mind that 7 or vista trumps XP in security are:
many useless services are off by default compared to XP
UAC is there by default in 7 or vista... keeps processes from running with administrator privileges... idiots disable it because it's "annoying", yeah it is on vista, but not enough to be so in 7... it protects users from malware and makes users think about whether it's really something they want to do/run or not

Joey_sw wrote:

7 is immensely more secure

that reminds me about 9x vs XP secure-ness debate.

I also find that typical win-7 installation also leaves this remote-registry services in activated states all the time.

really? its not on automatically anymore like it is in XP (manual on vista and 7 on some "typical installs" of mine and disabled on an 8 install

chinny22 wrote:

I do think Windows has lost the edge to Mac and has lost focus trying to get on top again with the focus on making everything more pretty rather than performance. I am so sick of waiting for the pretty icons to load on 2008, it’s a server it doesn’t need to have high res everything!

Heh but 7 has better performance then vista and 8 has better performance the 7 so can you really say this is true? I mean the system requirements haven't really increased since vista as long as you have a cpu that supports no executable bit.

2008 doesn't spend all its time loading pretty icons, I would say its barely prettier then 2003, or just use the core version and don't bother loading the full gui.

memsys wrote:

BigBodZod wrote:

Sorry but I do not find the minimums out of ordinary and in fact rather lacking for a minimum. (snip)

I'm not saying that the sys req are to high for current hardware i'm saying that for something as an OS i just find it stupid . An OS is supposed to be a base for the programs that run on top of it if the OS eats up half of the resources that leaves less for power hungry programs .
If this was the only was then there would not be a problem but it can be quite different .

Its the price you pay for functionality I guess. I mean you can say for example that lxde is a lot lighter then KDE for example but KDE is much more feature rich (not that im saying i like KDE more the lxde because I have never come to like KDE4).

Your example of ubuntu system requirements vs windows system requirements might not been the best example because I thought Ubuntu 7.0.4 (i think it was this version before it completely broke on me for 7.10) was sluggish on a celeron 700 compared to 5.0.4 which was much faster which was only a little sluggish from what I remember on 350mhz

I'm sure the os its self isn't heavy but its always the gui and stuff ontop not that I've ever compared eg server core vs server gui

awergh wrote:

(lots of stuff) Its the price you pay for functionality I guess. I mean you can say for example that lxde is a lot lighter then […]
Show full quote

(lots of stuff)
Its the price you pay for functionality I guess. I mean you can say for example that lxde is a lot lighter then KDE for example but KDE is much more feature rich (not that im saying i like KDE more the lxde because I have never come to like KDE4).

Your example of ubuntu system requirements vs windows system requirements might not been the best example because I thought Ubuntu 7.0.4 (i think it was this version before it completely broke on me for 7.10) was sluggish on a celeron 700 compared to 5.0.4 which was much faster which was only a little sluggish from what I remember on 350mhz

I'm sure the os its self isn't heavy but its always the gui and stuff ontop not that I've ever compared eg server core vs server gui

What i am trying to say is that you can have an OS that is both light and fully functional