Windows 9 Possibly free - i hope that this is a thing..

[Builder]

You are applying it, by saying the grass is much greener on the other side, but you know the reality is completely not true.

I know the reality IS completely true, because I've had the grass on both sides and Linux's grass is greener. Unix's in general is. Unix is programmer focused, Windows is business focused.

[GoodBytes]

Implying*, and you're assuming the implication. 

 

The reality is Linux is inherently more secure and idiot proof than Windows from the getgo. That's a fact. Some distributions remove the root/admin user altogether and only uses sudo. 

The reality is that there aren't many (if any) malware for Linux. Market share has a lot to do with that and the fact that Linux is more inherently secure. The exploits that do exist are patched right away, so that's a non-issue. Sneaking in malware is also incredibly difficult with everything being open-source and scrutinized thoroughly before being released. 

 

And while I agree that education is the only solution to combat computer illiteracy, there's a bigger problem that cannot be addressed: the average layman doesn't give a rat's ass about learning. Both Windows and Linux can be made secure and idiot proof by the developer (to the point where even the most computer illiterate could use it without breaking it) - Linux just comes with more security and idiot proofing from the getgo.

If I can delete a file, therefore a software can to, and therefore that software is a malware, and therefore can be executed by a user, and therefore defeats the point of being better than Windows.

Even if your OS is, let's say extremely secure and robust. A malware can be made that instead of infecting the system, it infects the users files. A background program can be made that deletes all user files, and monitors for any drive that is connected and delete those files as well, preventing restore from backup.

So, as you can see, it is not better.

And not having root access... funny how that went with Windows users. While it does help, virus and Waldemar are still made, and users still executes them. Even if it needs root access via password, a software will say: "Hey, thanks for running Keygen, I can't run, without root privileges. Run me as root, and I can generate a key". Then you do, and oops, you are infected. That is a simple example. So, it's not idiot proof. And all current example, has nothing to do with exploits of the OS.

You say, that Linux is inherently more secure because of low market share, which I agree. So saying to people to switch to Linux, will break this. Why would you want to break this, and start having a less secure OS.

[mr moose]

Riiiiiiiight....

So the non-existent extras people paid for, confusing version scheme, buggy as hell Dreamscene, archaic UI, bad compatibility, poorly optimised memory management and CPU hogging was the user's fault?

He's wrong because it was not the users fault, it was the manufacturers fault, not that many home builders (mostly enthusiasts I'd assume) put Vista on shitty hardware.  While lots of manufactures put it on sub $500 laptops which was essentially what killed it in the market place.  2006/07 was about the time when the economy had grown to a point where cheap laptops where everywhere, had the release of win7, XP or any other OS coincided with that we'd all be saying how crap that OS was instead. 

 

The only time it is ever the users fault is if the issue could have been avoided by reading the Manual.

[GoodBytes]

Riiiiiiiight....

So the non-existent extras people paid for, confusing version scheme, buggy as hell Dreamscene, archaic UI, bad compatibility, poorly optimised memory management and CPU hogging was the user's fault?

That is not the reason the main reason why people didn't like Vista. Try again.

Memory management of Vista was not touched from Windows 7 to my knowledge.

Similarly to MacOS not supporting PowerPC made software when the switch to Intel CPU was made, Vista re-work of the kernel led that peripherals drivers needed to be updated. If the consumer didn't like the fact that many manufactures forced them to buy a newer version of what they have, then they should complain to them and/or to the BBB, and/or never buy products from them again for doing such action. Luckily, people did that, and many manufacture got a massive hurt in sales, as consumer switch to brands that doesn't do crappy tricks like that.

Brother was able to enter into the consumer market due to HP actions, same for ASUS with their Xonar thanks to Creative Labs actions, and so on.

The UI is the same as Windows 7. Dreamscene worked fine. I was using it.

[killcomic]

He's wrong because it was not the users fault, it was the manufacturers fault, not that many home builders (mostly enthusiasts I'd assume) put Vista on shitty hardware.  While lots of manufactures put it on sub $500 laptops which was essentially what killed it in the market place.  2006/07 was about the time when the economy had grown to a point where cheap laptops where everywhere, had the release of win7, XP or any other OS coincided with that we'd all be saying how crap that OS was instead. 

 

The only time it is ever the users fault is if the issue could have been avoided by reading the Manual.

It was Microsoft's fault for coming up with it's certification scheme. Their 'Vista ready' programme allowed for woefully inadequate hardware to be loaded with Vista. Had they had realistic minimum specs, at least the performance complaints, could have been avoided. The design flaws of the OS is another matter as is the lack of support for the Premium 'extras'.

My opinion that it was good old corporate greed that created the mess to start with.

[rashdanml]

If I can delete a file, therefore a software can to, and therefore that software is a malware, and therefore can be executed by a user, and therefore defeats the point of being better than Windows.

Even if your OS is, let's say extremely secure and robust. A malware can be made that instead of infecting the system, it infects the users files. A background program can be made that deletes all user files, and monitors for any drive that is connected and delete those files as well, preventing restore from backup.

So, as you can see, it is not better.

And not having root access... funny how that went with Windows users. While it does help, virus and Waldemar are still made, and users still executes them. Even if it needs root access via password, a software will say: "Hey, thanks for running Keygen, I can't run, without root privileges. Run me as root, and I can generate a key". Then you do, and oops, you are infected. That is a simple example. So, it's not idiot proof. And all current example, has nothing to do with exploits of the OS.

You say, that Linux is inherently more secure because of low market share, which I agree. So saying to people to switch to Linux, will break this. Why would you want to break this, and start having a less secure OS.

1) Good luck sneaking in a software that deletes important files. Source code is heavily scrutinized for just these kinds of things. Everything released for Linux requires releasing the source as well as pre-compiled binaries. Binary only releases most probably won't be accepted for Linux, unless it's a trusted source (hardware manufacturers).

 

2) Virus and malware are made for Windows because there are many more machines out there, meaning the proportion of computer illiterate folk to take advantage of is much higher. The same cannot be said for Linux, as even if it had a higher market share, sneaking in malware is much more difficult due to the open-source nature of the system. Windows doesn't require source-code releases, so anyone can sneak in anything and cause trouble (by taking advantage of user stupidity). And even if a large proportion of users on Linux are just as stupid, the developers and package maintainers aren't - and every piece of submitted software is scrutinized to the point where even a complete idiot won't be able to screw up their system. 

 

3) The inherent security isn't due to low market share. Lack of malware is due to low market share. The inherent security has been around since its inception. More users on Linux would increase the number of attempts to introduce malware into the system, and they'll likely all fail because of that inherent security.

[killcomic]

The UI is the same as Windows 7. Dreamscene worked fine. I was using it.

 

 

Really?

So free floating gadgets, libraries, windows snapping and docking, improved peeking, windows shaking, the Win7 taskbar that allows you to manage your icons and jump lists are the same as Vista?

[GoodBytes]

1) Good luck sneaking in a software that deletes important files. Source code is heavily scrutinized for just these kinds of things. Everything released for Linux requires releasing the source as well as pre-compiled binaries. Binary only releases most probably won't be accepted for Linux, unless it's a trusted source (hardware manufacturers).

Nothing stops me of distributing the software on the web. If Linux becomes as big as Windows, then you'll have companies making and selling their software, and you'll have cracks and keygens being distributed as well.

If you are thinking of turning Linux into iOS model where everything is locked down, well all it will happen is that you'll have jail broken Linux distro, and the problem will start there.

2) Virus and malware are made for Windows because there are many more machines out there, meaning the proportion of computer illiterate folk to take advantage of is much higher. The same cannot be said for Linux, as even if it had a higher market share, sneaking in malware is much more difficult due to the open-source nature of the system. Windows doesn't require source-code releases, so anyone can sneak in anything and cause trouble (by taking advantage of user stupidity). And even if a large proportion of users on Linux are just as stupid, the developers and package maintainers aren't - and every piece of submitted software is scrutinized to the point where even a complete idiot won't be able to screw up their system.

 

Linux doesn't require source code release. You don't see the source code of Linux games that you get from Steam. Try again.

3) The inherent security isn't due to low market share. Lack of malware is due to low market share. The inherent security has been around since its inception. More users on Linux would increase the number of attempts to introduce malware into the system, and they'll likely all fail because of that inherent security.

Try again, I just give you a situation that can't be blocked.

[GoodBytes]

Really?

So free floating gadgets, libraries, windows snapping and docking, improved peeking, windows shaking, the Win7 taskbar that allows you to manage your icons and jump lists are the same as Vista?

- floating gadgets was in Vista. I was using it.

- libraries is just a folder regrouping other folders. XP didn't have it, and no one complained, same for other OSs.

- window snapping was not there in previous version of Windows or any other OS, and people didn't complain on how they can't use the OS without this ability.

- docking of window is a feature that a software needs to implement, and that exists since Windows 95 if not, earlier. I recall ICQ having this ability.

- Windows 7 task bar appeared in Windows 7. People could perfectly use the system before that.

I have a feeling that you don't know that Vista was released before Windows 7.

[killcomic]

- floating gadgets was in Vista. I was using it.

- libraries is just a folder regrouping other folders. XP didn't have it, and no one complained, same for other OSs.

- window snapping was not there in previous version of Windows or any other OS, and people didn't complain on how they can't use the OS without this ability.

- docking of window is a feature that a software needs to implement, and that exists since Windows 95 if not, earlier. I recall ICQ having this ability.

- Windows 7 task bar appeared in Windows 7. People could perfectly use the system before that.

I have a feeling that you don't know that Vista was released before Windows 7.

 

Ahem, but then Vista DOES NOT have the same UI as Windows 7 like you said, does it?

Vista did not bring enough to the table to lure people away from XP. Instead, it brought problems that didn't exist previously.

People were hungry for new features. Everyone had their eyes on OS X and were asking why windows was still living in the past. So if you think people weren't complaining, perhaps you weren't paying attention during that time.

[landon418]

I loved windows Vista, coming from an old pentium 4 ht with 512mbs of RAM to a shiny used laptop 

[mr moose]

It was Microsoft's fault for coming up with it's certification scheme. Their 'Vista ready' programme allowed for woefully inadequate hardware to be loaded with Vista. Had they had realistic minimum specs, at least the performance complaints, could have been avoided. The design flaws of the OS is another matter as is the lack of support for the Premium 'extras'.

My opinion that it was good old corporate greed that created the mess to start with.

 

Vista had a few issues with memory and CPU usage, however it wasn't intrinsically flawed, I do believe the issues were the manufacturers putting it on crappy hardware. I honestly believe if MS could have don it over they would have been a lot tighter on the hardware they allowed manufactures to release.   I had it and there is very little difference between vista 7 as far as effects, UI and folder grouping goes. I didn't like it at first, but once I got used to it I didn't have any issues after that. 

[GoodBytes]

Ahem, but then Vista DOES NOT have the same UI as Windows 7 like you said, does it?

You said that Vista UI was awful. It is the same as Win7 and previous version of Windows. You have windows, task bar, you can minimize, maximize/restore and close windows, you can have full screen ones, you have sub windows, you can have panels, you can have tabs, dropdown menus, buttons, and so on. Same start menu as well + instant search.

Vista did not bring enough to the table to lure people away from XP. Instead, it brought problems that didn't exist previously.

People were hungry for new features. Everyone had their eyes on OS X and were asking why windows was still living in the past. So if you think people weren't complaining, perhaps you weren't paying attention during that time.

A full core rework was the focus of Vista, to massively improve its security, reliability, and support modern technologies.

But I agree, all this is meaningless to the consumer. It's all about features. Vista had a nice set of features but not enough.

[killcomic]

You said that Vista UI was awful. It is the same as Win7 and previous version of Windows. You have windows, task bar, you can minimize, maximize/restore and close windows, you can have full screen ones, you have sub windows, you can have panels, you can have tabs, dropdown menus, buttons, and so on. Same start menu as well + instant search.

 

I didn't say the UI was awful. It failed to deliver an upgrade and that was a fundamental design flaw on behalf of Microsoft. Why would people want to pay for something that didn't deliver much different from XP for much higher requirements?

Windows 7 allows for parallel windows docking, unsnapping, taskbar icon arrangement... if you look at it coldly, it almost seem trivial but the effect it has on the perceived quality of UI is immense and puts it on par with other modern operating systems.

[deathjester]

I didn't say the UI was awful. It failed to deliver an upgrade and that was a fundamental design flaw on behalf of Microsoft. Why would people want to pay for something that didn't deliver much different from XP for much higher requirements?

Windows 7 allows for parallel windows docking, unsnapping, taskbar icon arrangement... if you look at it coldly, it almost seem trivial but the effect it has on the perceived quality of UI is immense and puts it on par with other modern operating systems.

 

Windows 7 is the same kernel as Vista. Vista's main problem was it could have used some more refinement, and memory usage was too high for the toasters people were running. If they released it a year later with a little more polish people probably would have loved it. 7 is literally like a patched Vista.  

 

Also you had to use third party tools like better touch tool (that was the free one) to get snapping on Snow Leopard and I am pretty sure it came out after 7, so I have no idea where you are going there. 10.6 was a pretty awesome OS though as far as user friendliness, and I guess I would call it, just simple elegance. Like anyone could use the OS for the first time and feel at home. Snow Leopard still has 25 percent market share on Mac's (Rosetta has to do with that as well). It is pretty much Apples XP. 

 

8? That isn't a problem with performance or hardware. That is just MS doing stupid crap, and not listening to their customers and beta testers who told them they were on crack.

[killcomic]

Windows 7 is the same kernel as Vista. Vista's main problem was it could have used some more refinement, and memory usage was too high for the toasters people were running. If they released it a year later with a little more polish people probably would have loved it. 7 is literally like a patched Vista.  

 

Also you had to use third party tools like better touch tool (that was the free one) to get snapping on Snow Leopard and I am pretty sure it came out after 7, so I have no idea where you are going there. 10.6 was a pretty awesome OS though as far as user friendliness, and I guess I would call it, just simple elegance. Like anyone could use the OS for the first time and feel at home. Snow Leopard still has 25 percent market share on Mac's (Rosetta has to do with that as well). It is pretty much Apples XP. 

 

8? That isn't a problem with performance or hardware. That is just MS doing stupid crap, and not listening to their customers and beta testers who told them they were on crack.

You could get snapping in Ubuntu since like 2004 or so. I remember using it on a laptop and being blown away by the UI. XP started to look really old to me by then.

 

I really like Windows 8.1 for it's stability (I'm using Start8 to get me a proper menu) but Jesus, what's the deal with not allowing you to go into safe mode unless you're already in the OS? What's the point?!

[The_Evenger]

NO. I don't want it free, if it's free, that means adds! I don't want adds no my OS!

I would need add block just for my damn OS!

[GoodBytes]

what's the deal with not allowing you to go into safe mode unless you're already in the OS? What's the point?!

The reason is that you are not fast enough in hitting the key to access to more options. You have a few milisecond gap were you can hit the key.

The problem is that UEFI allows for too fast booting, and makes Windows starts far quicker. And in addition of quick boot feature of Windows 8 added, well, you really can't catch it.

So, it was removed, to keep it consistent with those still running on the old BIOS (let me). To access Safe Mode, restart or turn off the system 3 times while Windows loads, and the 4th time, it will show the recovery menu where you pick SafeMode options, or other system options. Or do like you said, do it from Windows. Hold Shift before hitting Restart from the menu, and keep holding Shift, until you get to the menu.

[killcomic]

The reason is that you are not fast enough in hitting the key to access to more options. You have a few milisecond gap were you can hit the key.

The problem is that UEFI allows for too fast booting, and makes Windows starts far quicker. And in addition of quick boot feature of Windows 8 added, well, you really can't catch it.

So, it was removed, to keep it consistent with those still running on the old BIOS (let me). To access Safe Mode, restart or turn off the system 3 times while Windows loads, and the 4th time, it will show the recovery menu where you pick SafeMode options, or other system options. Or do like you said, do it from Windows. Hold Shift before hitting Restart from the menu, and keep holding Shift, until you get to the menu.

On top of that I got an SSD as my boot drive so it all loads up before I can blink. 

[Imaginaerum]

On top of that I got an SSD as my boot drive so it all loads up before I can blink. 

Who woulda thought there was such a thing as too fast

[killcomic]

Who woulda thought there was such a thing as too fast

I know, right?

I should wash my mouth with soap!

[Techhog]

You could get snapping in Ubuntu since like 2004 or so. I remember using it on a laptop and being blown away by the UI. XP started to look really old to me by then.

 

I really like Windows 8.1 for it's stability (I'm using Start8 to get me a proper menu) but Jesus, what's the deal with not allowing you to go into safe mode unless you're already in the OS? What's the point?!

Safe mode is my only real issue with 8/8.1. I assume it's due to fast boot, but that doesn't make it any less dumb.

[rashdanml]

Nothing stops me of distributing the software on the web. If Linux becomes as big as Windows, then you'll have companies making and selling their software, and you'll have cracks and keygens being distributed as well.

If you are thinking of turning Linux into iOS model where everything is locked down, well all it will happen is that you'll have jail broken Linux distro, and the problem will start there.

 

Linux doesn't require source code release. You don't see the source code of Linux games that you get from Steam. Try again.

Try again, I just give you a situation that can't be blocked.

1) You're required to release source code as per the GPL. Creating a website and releasing a software isn't the same on Linux as it is on Windows.

2) Steam is the exception and not the rule. In fact, GNU doesn't support SteamOS because of that very reason. Doesn't change the fact that almost all software on Linux is released as per the GPL requiring source code to be released simultaneously. 

3) No you didn't. Releasing software on the web is still subjected to the same level of scrutiny by the community, as source code still needs to be released. Steam's exception is due to trusting game developers not to add malware into their games (their reputation being on the line). Same goes for other large companies that release proprietary software for Linux - these are big companies and they rely on customer trust not to screw things up. 

 

Nice try, but your attempts to liken Linux to Windows are cute. 

[Builder]

-snip-

Reading him write about cracks and keygens for Linux almost makes you think he doesn't understand how this stuff works...

[GoodBytes]

I think you guys don't know how things works.

Companies will never give out their source code. If you expect that, than you live in a dream world, they'll all be exceptions, not following GPL.

That is one of the many reasons, you currently have walls that prevents Linux from ever become popular. Lack of software and drivers. But, we are now assuming that all these walls are broken, and that Windows no longer exists, and that it in a Linux based world, where it has a 90%+ market share.

You have walls, then you never going to pass the current market share, and Windows will still be the choice to go. No mater how much you guys want too, and how others says they want all their games on Linux, it won't happen. Studios will never give out their source code, plain and simple, than you have the rest of the industry. Private companies, such as Adobe, or MSI/ASUS/EVGA with their overclocking software, and so on and so forth.