For those of you who aren't geeks like me, the wording on that page isn't quite as clear as I'd like it to be.
There's good things with Secure Boot... it prevents malware from getting into the MBR, etc... but... the bad may outweigh the good. It can also prevent you from ever booting anything except what came with the PC... including legally purchased copies of Windows (ie, I buy Windows 8 Ultimate when my PC came with Home), boot disks such as memtest86 or other recovery tools, and Linux/Hackintosh stuff.
It's not a good thing, I'm a Windows guy, I support Microsoft in almost everything they do - and this scares me.
Not that signing an internet petition will help, but... it can't hurt, right?
Looks like MS will continue their trend of Good OS, Terrible OS, Good OS, Terrible OS. Right now the bad in Win 8 outweighs the good by a large stretch. The fact that it was honestly designed for tablets, was just about enough to kill it for me.
"Forums: You have to form your opinions immediately based on jack s*it then fight them to the death! It's like Highlander, but instead of swords we use ignorance."
I played with the Developer preview. Some things I have to say. 1: It's ugly. 2: it forces you to connect to a hotmail/live account to create your user account when you install (wtf guys?). 3: it's ugly. 4. Applications (no matter what language) appear to be nothing more than web based applications. 5: It WILL install in VirtualBox so if you decide you want to play with it just grab a copy and go. Handing it 4GB of RAM and 1GB video and 2 of my processors, it wanted to stutter and shimmy and shake switching between 'screens'
Did I say it's ugly?
You know you're bored when you run the original Zork on an Apple ][ emulator in SuSe running as a virtual machine on Vista64.
Looks like MS will continue their trend of Good OS, Terrible OS, Good OS, Terrible OS.
this isnt a trend thats accidental, vista was the open beta for 7, me (or was it 2000?) was the open beta for xp,
so its more like
Sell a shitty beta os, piss off every poor sucker who paid for it, then with all the feed back and 2 or 4 service packs get it functional only to
sell a new os that is the old os only with the bugs worked out.
Life...is like a box of chocolates. A cheap, thoughtless, perfunctory gift that no one ever asks for. Unreturnable because all you get back is another box of chocolates. So, you're stuck with mostly undefinable whipped mint crap, mindlessly wolfed down when there's nothing else to eat while you're watching the game. Sure, once in a while you get a peanut butter cup or an English toffee but it's gone too fast and the taste is fleeting. In the end, you're left with nothing but broken bits filled with hardened jelly and teeth shattering nuts, which if you are desperate enough to eat leaves nothing but an empty box of useless brown paper wrappers.-- Cancer Man.
once you jump through all kinds of hoops to turn off the Metro ui (which is great on tablets/phones but worthless on any non touch interface), it looks just like Win 7.
The only arguments I hear for Win 8 thus far are because it transfers Data from disc to disc and across networks faster and that it boots faster.
My testing thus far.
1gb File Across Gig LAN
Win 7 - 3 minutes 15 seconds
Win 8 - 3 minutes 10 seconds.
Frankly, 5-8 seconds isn't something I actually care about. A MINOR improvement at best, not the major one everyone keeps yelling about. Honestly I question the validity of some of these tests and if they aren't trying sneaky crap like comparing platter drives to SSD.
Boot Time (SSD)
Win 7 properly configured and without a bunch of bs starting up, i.e Clean install. 15 Seconds'
Win 8 10 seconds.
This is to a functional desktop, please note that a functional desktop is one that I can already move the mouse, click on an application (in this case Chrome) on the task bar and see it starting to load up. Once again, not a huge difference in time. Now if you run win 7 on a standard platter drive it takes significantly longer for obvious reasons. But in an apples to apples comparison it isn't much faster. Frankly anything under 20 seconds is extremely fast and basically the different is moot. The only people I can imagine actually being impressed are those who don't already have a machine with an SSD. That said the speed different is almost purely with the hard drive, the OS has really very little impact.
So there you have it, a clear picture of all the hype surrounding Win 8. Is it an improvement in some respects? Yes it is. However it is at best a minor improvement over Win 7.
My interest has been null since I've read their primary motivation for Win 8 was tablet computing. My needs are not those of other end users.....but Win 7 leaves me wanting for nothing, and that's how I felt about XP when I switched over. I'm still surprised that there's so little about 7 that I actually object to.
Also MS just pegged the end of support for XP at 2014. Which leaves me feeling like, yeah, why would I buy Win 8 again?
chmod said:
I don't want to live in a world where there are no consequences for being stupid. A few thousand years ago these users would have been eaten by lions.
Edit to clarify: Microsoft artificially extended support. Mostly because it's entrenched so deeply in business environments. Even if you find a company that's on the bleeding edge of technology you're going to find that the majority of key systems and processes run on XP.
Last edited by Hordolin Awanagin; 10-28-11 at 05:49 AM.
If by support you mean they aren't saying no to call ins. Minimal updates, can't run newest releases (no IE9, no DirectX 10 or 11, etc).
There's really NO reason anyone should still be on XP, Windows 7 is superior in every way, including resource use/management.
If the new file system is in place for Windows 8, it could be a huge overall increase in every file action - that 5-10 seconds may not seem like a lot, but it will add up.
Agree that nobody should be using XP still but they are. Take a look at any freaking ATM or other kiosk with a touch screen/gui interface. Electronic billboards, Retail management (Look at a POS terminal in freaking Best Buy), it's EVERYWHERE.
If by support you mean they aren't saying no to call ins. Minimal updates, can't run newest releases (no IE9, no DirectX 10 or 11, etc).
There's really NO reason anyone should still be on XP, Windows 7 is superior in every way, including resource use/management.
If the new file system is in place for Windows 8, it could be a huge overall increase in every file action - that 5-10 seconds may not seem like a lot, but it will add up.
No reason any "home" user should be. Businesses don't have quite as much choice. There are still a number of programs out there are are business required that won't run on anything except XP. Those companies are basically holding large swaths of the corporate environment hostage.
As for me, I just got approved to eliminate the last of the XP machines from my office. That will put me with Win 7 and Server SBS 2011 across the board. It took me a while to learn the new way of doing things in 7/2011 because batchfiles and scripts are completely eliminated. Now that I have learned though, Oh my god so much better.
batchfiles and scripts are completely eliminated..
Interesting. Most of the stuff I do with SBS 2011 is done either from admin command prompt or with PowerShell (scripts or prompt).
Maybe I'm just used to working that way but there are things that you can't do with any of the GUI that you can do with PowerShell (Mailbox import/export comes to mind).
Interesting. Most of the stuff I do with SBS 2011 is done either from admin command prompt or with PowerShell (scripts or prompt).
Maybe I'm just used to working that way but there are things that you can't do with any of the GUI that you can do with PowerShell (Mailbox import/export comes to mind).
You can use them still, but on the whole they are unnecessary. There are a few obvious exception as you mentioned. I was referring to the daily stuff such as Printers, desktop building and stuff like that. SBS2011 just simply does it..Bear in mind I skipped server 2008 from 2003 so some of this is new to me that has been around a while. Other than mailbox importing I haven't used a single script since the switch.
For desktop users I don't really see why boot time matters. I very rarely turn off or restart my PC. For laptop users I can see why, mostly how much time it takes to come out of hibernation, which I assume is faster for Win8 as well.
If by support you mean they aren't saying no to call ins. Minimal updates, can't run newest releases (no IE9, no DirectX 10 or 11, etc).
There's really NO reason anyone should still be on XP, Windows 7 is superior in every way, including resource use/management.
If the new file system is in place for Windows 8, it could be a huge overall increase in every file action - that 5-10 seconds may not seem like a lot, but it will add up.
I still use it because I can't find a proper shell replacement for Windows 7 and I'm addicted as hell to my blackbox theme with right-click customized start menu.
For desktop users I don't really see why boot time matters. I very rarely turn off or restart my PC. For laptop users I can see why, mostly how much time it takes to come out of hibernation, which I assume is faster for Win8 as well.
I turn off my PC when I am gonna not use it for a while (ie, going out for the night, prolly don't need it til the next day, etc)... I also update when I need to, so at least once a month I reboot.
It's not just boot time, though. It's also file actions - copying, moving, etc. Not just across the network, or drives, but, overall it's faster.
I still use it because I can't find a proper shell replacement for Windows 7 and I'm addicted as hell to my blackbox theme with right-click customized start menu.
That's not a valid reason. That's a personal preference, not a "I HAVE to do this."
Right now we're at a point of diminishing returns for new OSes when it comes to people who aren't gamers, programmers, video editors, or who use them for other demanding tasks. For the very basic users, people who only use their computer for facebook, email, word processing, and other simple tasks, there is no reason at all for them to buy either a new computer or a new operating system. They will continue to run their old Pentium 4 Dells with Windows XP until the hardware fails. Windows XP still does all of those things perfectly.
Well I dunno about the good bad good bad thing...3.0-3.11 were good for what they were. 95 was great, 98 was great, xp was great(all to me at least) 2000 I hear sucked, as well as ME, and then it was vista which sucked, then 7 which is ok. I might be missing a few or they might be out of order.
Not really a personal preference either. http://www.bb4win.org/news.php
There are several BlackBox shells that work in 7.
My google-fu is weak apparently. <3 <3 <3 totally upgrading to Windows 7 next time I reformat.
It's murder on the dance floor.. You better not steal the moves
Traverse - Asura Thief on Gates of Madness (GW2)
Pyrocat - 60 Troll Shaman (Project1999)
Straight Flush - 51 Gnome Rogue (Project1999)
Right now we're at a point of diminishing returns for new OSes when it comes to people who aren't gamers, programmers, video editors, or who use them for other demanding tasks. For the very basic users, people who only use their computer for facebook, email, word processing, and other simple tasks, there is no reason at all for them to buy either a new computer or a new operating system. They will continue to run their old Pentium 4 Dells with Windows XP until the hardware fails. Windows XP still does all of those things perfectly.
Unless they are tired of paying me $300-$500 per year minimum every year to remove all the malware they get and reinstall XP regularly because it has **** for security and falls apart most of the time after it has been compromised.
I have customers who literally average $1500 a year just having me remove viruses. Win7 would alone block 80% of the crap they get even with their terrible computing habits. It is actually those very basic users that need to get off XP the most. Sorry, I won't hear any excuses about justifying XP for the average user. There is no excuse for them to be on it at this point outside being stupid and cheap. I probably only see 1 Vista/7 machine for every 20 XP machines infected with malware. Users habits haven't changed one bit, people are just as stupid today as they were 20 years ago.
We just moved our lap and classroom systems from Xp to 7, it was a pain in the ass, mostly due to the removal of the boot.ini file.. so learning how to sysprep the images properly is taking time.
Getting a image with 7 and server08 on it is a ****ing nightmare (for a lab)
That said I love 7 and have been using it for a few years now.
Tivia said:
Unless they are tired of paying me $300-$500 per year minimum every year to remove all the malware they get and reinstall XP regularly because it has **** for security and falls apart most of the time after it has been compromised.
I have customers who literally average $1500 a year just having me remove viruses. Win7 would alone block 80% of the crap they get even with their terrible computing habits. It is actually those very basic users that need to get off XP the most. Sorry, I won't hear any excuses about justifying XP for the average user. There is no excuse for them to be on it at this point outside being stupid and cheap. I probably only see 1 Vista/7 machine for every 20 XP machines infected with malware. Users habits haven't changed one bit, people are just as stupid today as they were 20 years ago.
Man our students don't know how good they got it.. IT is included in their tuition, some people I never see.. others we know very well. Malware is always the boyfriend/girlfriend or the kids fault.. never the owner. I always try to educate a little bit, by telling them Java and Flash are good update that sh*t when it asks.. that is were most malware gets it's foot in the door.
Unless they are tired of paying me $300-$500 per year minimum every year to remove all the malware they get and reinstall XP regularly because it has **** for security and falls apart most of the time after it has been compromised.
I have customers who literally average $1500 a year just having me remove viruses. Win7 would alone block 80% of the crap they get even with their terrible computing habits. It is actually those very basic users that need to get off XP the most. Sorry, I won't hear any excuses about justifying XP for the average user. There is no excuse for them to be on it at this point outside being stupid and cheap. I probably only see 1 Vista/7 machine for every 20 XP machines infected with malware. Users habits haven't changed one bit, people are just as stupid today as they were 20 years ago.
Being completely honest? I would rather see them upgrade their stuff. While I appreciate the money, I can honestly make it doing other things. Removing malware off XP ceased being a challenge years ago. I would far rather earn money educating him on how to take advantage of the features of a modern os and hardware vs the mind numbing task of removing malware. I make the same amount of money either way, the difference is one makes me feel like I accomplished something useful, while the other makes me feel like I wasted my time.
Andurian said:
We just moved our lap and classroom systems from Xp to 7, it was a pain in the ass, mostly due to the removal of the boot.ini file.. so learning how to sysprep the images properly is taking time.
Getting a image with 7 and server08 on it is a ****ing nightmare (for a lab)
That said I love 7 and have been using it for a few years now.
Man our students don't know how good they got it.. IT is included in their tuition, some people I never see.. others we know very well. Malware is always the boyfriend/girlfriend or the kids fault.. never the owner. I always try to educate a little bit, by telling them Java and Flash are good update that sh*t when it asks.. that is were most malware gets it's foot in the door.
Most people who have access to regular IT don't realize how good they have it. As soon as they lose that access and they get slapped with a bill the first time, the look of shock is nearly priceless. I have literally had people ask me why I don't remove malware for free because it is easy. My reply is simple "If it were easy you wouldn't be having me do it and if you are only having me do it because it isn't worth your time, this is what my time is worth".
Or they could, you know, stop downloading random porn
Actually most porn sites are far cleaner than people realize. Sure it is fun to poke fun at them, but reality is those sites have a higher incentive to keep their sites clean as dirty sites won't get as much business. As mentioned, these websites targeted at children tend to host far more malware.
People that don't know how to torrent, using torrents seems to be a large part of infections to.
"I have a virus"
Look at the desktop see Frostwire.. nod knowingly.
I've noticed that seems to happen quite a bit more even then when people are torrenting programs of various varieties... it's weird how many of them make no connection between running various executables from random strangers on the internet and their computer being as clean as a city gutter after game day. Just because they got it for free doesn't mean they don't end up paying for it.
I've noticed that seems to happen quite a bit more even then when people are torrenting programs of various varieties... it's weird how many of them make no connection between running various executables from random strangers on the internet and their computer being as clean as a city gutter after game day. Just because they got it for free doesn't mean they don't end up paying for it.
Er.. I've never gotten a virus from a torrent... filesharing programs like kazaa and limewire are far worse.
Not saying torrents are always clean... but private sites tend to keep out most of the riffraff.
Same, never any problem with torrents (obviously only taking from reputable sources). However I can honestly say that some of the worst machines I have had to fix did indeed have frostwire on the desktop, with limewire running a close second.
Honestly, things like Grooveshark and pandora make torrenting music even more stupid than it already is to begin with. Stream it free if you are at a computer and if you absolutely must have it on your ipod, quit being a thief and ****ing drop a few $..No one, and I mean absolutely no one needs 30,000 songs or can even listen to that many songs. I think some people have these insane collections just because they can't resist the temptation to steal ****.
I likely have 10-15k songs..but 98% of them are on a CD collection that I have built over a 25 year period of time and of those I easily haven't listened to 95% of it in a decade.
Edit: before anyone attempts to point out an apparent hypocrisy, I only torrent fansubs of anime I watch that otherwise are freely viewable on TV (unless of course the dub isn't ****, then I just watch it on tv). They aren't kept and I support the publishers by purchasing dvd sets of the shows I watch.
Er.. I've never gotten a virus from a torrent... filesharing programs like kazaa and limewire are far worse.
Not saying torrents are always clean... but private sites tend to keep out most of the riffraff.
I think the key part here is private sites. Trust me, the kind of people who get their computers infected on a regular basis are not on any private sites - and the public sites... Well if you really want the latest and greatest game/expensive program from a public site where it's so new there aren't even any comments yet - a lot come with a free little surprise.
And no, that's not speaking from personal experience, I pay for my games - always. Sometimes twice thanks to steam and GOG. But I will find a safe no-cd crack or DRM bypasses if I'm not able to play my purchases as well and hassle free as pirates can - but unlike people who's computers I have the 'joy' of fixing, I know where to go and what to look out for.
I don't know that it is fair to equate P2P fire sharing (Kazaa, Frostwire, etc.) with torrenting... I realize it is all swarm-based, but still. Or maybe I'm behind on the times.
No you are correct, P2P like Kazaa and stuff are similar but not the same as Bittorrent. It is actually significantly easier to protect yourself against malware through torrents than it is with P2P crap. Not to mention it is nearly impossible to hide behind P2P, which is why you see so many P2P users getting sued in court, but the Media conglomerates are being forced to go after torrent site owners to try and get the torrenters.
