TR Forums

Meadows wrote:

To top it off, you're wrong. The UI changed dramatically compared to current Windows versions, and this is causing the outrage. Nobody has any problem with how W8 runs behind the scenes; indeed, it's better than ever. But users are sitting in front of the scenes, and the curtains no longer match the paint.

Yup. And this alone may actually get more people to try Linux (though a fair number of those people will probably end up switching back for various reasons). It's really too bad that Ubuntu also chose this point in time to ditch the classic desktop metaphor for their own weird desktop/tablet compromise UI. Yes you can install alternate desktop managers (and it isn't even that difficult); but Linux newbies are probably going to go with whatever Ubuntu supplies as the default and be put off by the fact that it feels almost as alien as Windows 8.

I suspect (but have absolutely no proof) that Office 2007 indirectly helped get more people to try OpenOffice/LibreOffice. If you've gotta re-learn the UI anyway, the barrier to switching to something else is lower; and OpenOffice/LibreOffice looks more like Office 2003 than Office 2007 did.

Glorious wrote:

JBI wrote:

And I've still got a Windows VM for the obligatory Outlook e-mail client and IE (for our idiotic IE-specific corporate Intranet apps).

Those two things are pretty much only things (except it's lotus notes) I use windows for at work too. Well, except when I end up fixing other people's stupid windows crap. Grr.

Yes, "fixing other people's crap" is the reason I have THREE Windows VMs (32-bit WinXP, 64-bit WinXP, and 64-bit Win7) set up on my workstation, even though only one of them is normally left running. Those are the three versions of Windows currently in use in our office, and since I'm one of the people that gets called when "other people's crap" breaks, having environments that are similar to all the other workstations is useful (and I'd really rather not have a big pile of workstations at my desk).

Meadows wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

that is build around the app store

Krogoth wrote:

The start menu didn't disappeared

Krogoth wrote:

At worse,

Krogoth wrote:

no different what happened

Which country are you from again?

To top it off, you're wrong. The UI changed dramatically compared to current Windows versions, and this is causing the outrage. Nobody has any problem with how W8 runs behind the scenes; indeed, it's better than ever. But users are sitting in front of the scenes, and the curtains no longer match the paint.

The classical desktop is still there and can be access with a single click or keyboard command if you don't like the "Start Screen".

"BAWWWW!!! THAT'S ASKING TOO MUCH!"

The "Start Screen" is a throwback to the "Program Manager" with previews and an "app store" thrown into the mix. I

I suppose that the haters are going hate change no matter how subtle or superficial it is.

My problem with Windows 8 is that it is nothing more than Window 7+ with an app store front-end ham-fisted into it. There's no compelling reason for existing Vista/7 users to get it.

ludi wrote:

. You cited UAC as an example of Windows applications stalling or something, but I've never seen it happen except when the user has switched applications and the UAC alert is prevented from stealing focus. I can see where this might bug the daylights out of a system tech who does nothing but reconfigure machines all day, but for the average user it works exactly as it should IME.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. The su prompt should always steal focus. Why shouldn't it? UAC prompts can prevent the user from not only using the application that's requesting access, but also the application that isn't. This is what should happen. Unfortunately the UAC prompt can sometimes be hidden or not get focus. It's a su request it should always recieve focus. I've seen this happen often enough in Vista/Win7 that I find it hard to believe that no one has experienced it. I experience it at least once per Windows session where I have to look in the taskbar below to find where the UAC prompt is.

That being said I've given another example of Windows hanging. There are tons of these that I've come across over the years.

kc77 wrote:

ludi wrote:

. You cited UAC as an example of Windows applications stalling or something, but I've never seen it happen except when the user has switched applications and the UAC alert is prevented from stealing focus. I can see where this might bug the daylights out of a system tech who does nothing but reconfigure machines all day, but for the average user it works exactly as it should IME.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. The su prompt should always steal focus. Why shouldn't it? UAC prompts can prevent the user from not only using the application that's requesting access, but also the application that isn't. This is what should happen. Unfortunately the UAC prompt can sometimes be hidden or not get focus. It's a su request it should always recieve focus. I've seen this happen often enough in Vista/Win7 that I find it hard to believe that no one has experienced it. I experience it at least once per Windows session where I have to look in the taskbar below to find where the UAC prompt is.

That being said I've given another example of Windows hanging. There are tons of these that I've come across over the years.

On the Vista machines that I admin at home, this happens all the time with the Java auto-updater. I'll probably get around to ditching Java on them anyway, if the security issues persist.

UAC will validate the digital signature on files. This is probably the "delay" on large files you're seeing. A security function that su and sudo lack.

Krogoth wrote:

The classical desktop is still there and can be access with a single click or keyboard command if you don't like the "Start Screen".

"BAWWWW!!! THAT'S ASKING TOO MUCH!"

The "Start Screen" is a throwback to the "Program Manager" with previews and an "app store" thrown into the mix. I

I suppose that the haters are going hate change no matter how subtle or superficial it is.

Stop downplaying it, you're just trolling for the sake of argument. If the change was subtle, nobody would have the rabies over it. Do you even know the meaning of "subtle"?

Krogoth wrote:

can be access

Seriously?

Also, I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that you don't have to press Enter every time you reach the end of the text input field. Don't worry, you can keep typing, you won't run out of screen.

Ryu Connor wrote:

UAC will validate the digital signature on files. This is probably the "delay" on large files you're seeing. A security function that su and sudo lack.

UAC spawns during IE file downloads? Hmm can't remember if it does that or not I'll have to check later.

kc77 wrote:

UAC spawns during IE file downloads? Hmm can't remember if it does that or not I'll have to check later.

IE does have that "Protected Mode" which is available only under UAC, but I have no idea what that actually entails beyond the obvious sandboxing.

kc77 wrote:

UAC spawns during IE file downloads? Hmm can't remember if it does that or not I'll have to check later.

For IE it's a different delay. The delay in IE is the Smartfilter check to see if the file is known malicious. It will also leverage any Anti-Virus (including the built in Windows Defender) to scan the file as well.

I was referencing the double clicking of a large file that leverages UAC and the delay that occurs between the double click and the elevation prompt actually opening.

A great way to see this is through the "Mass Effect 2" DLC such as "Lair of the Shadow Broker". It takes a moment before UAC displays as the files digital signature is checked and the hash compared.

I actually really like Windows 8.I installed the release preview and played around with it for a little bit over the past few days. It's quite fast (on my HDD, not even the SSD) and makes me really want to get a Windows Phone next just because of how tightly they integrate together. My phone and laptop are two completely separate devices with pretty different functionality, but having a common experience across them is something I want, and I think Microsoft is actually getting the common experience part right (not a fan of Mountain Lion, though I really haven't used it much).
I ran Linux natively on my laptop for several months after I first got it and would still be doing so if I wasn't required to have Windows or OSX to access the secure wireless network at my university. I've worked with OSX quite a bit, and have used 10.3-10.6 for daily computing tasks over the past several years. I've used different flavors of Unix at work. I currently run Windows 7. I have experience with a huge range of different operating systems, and if I could pick any of them for my daily desktoping, I'd choose Windows 8. The first thing I would install is Hyper-V so I could virtualize Linux for all of my development work, but honestly, I really really like Windows 8, even on a laptop without a touchscreen.

Plus, my opinion about Microsoft is really high right now due to interactions with their server products.