I dual-boot Vista and Ubuntu 12.04( awaiting for the 12.10 ).
I use Vista because it was installed in my laptop in the first place but also because it's much more efficient with videos and games. The majority of PC games are written for Windows only for this reason.
Ubuntu I use for fast boot/reboot, convenient update mechanism, reliability and security( if you're no n00b ), and also because it contains all the necessary tools for developing my OS.
Devoted my life to programming...
It does contain a way to disable UAC. But if you do that, then Metro apps will stop working, which almost defeats the point of having Windows 8 in the first place.Originally Posted by Elkvis
Maybe you could use the built-in account, but I have never tried it. Still, if you do that, you lose the benefits of a Microsoft account (ie syncing and stuff).
But I'm sure people will find a way to get around all of this crap in time.
Um no, it isn't. UAC is not force on you, in fact Vista and 7 force it on the user in comparison to 8. While I'm a Linux guy at heart Microsoft deserves praise on W8. Please do not call something broken just because you fail to successfully operate it.
From all I've heard, it is a step backwards in almost every way from user (more "hoop jumpery" to get to familiar operations) and developer (problematic API and some ridiculous requirement on "metro") perspectives.While I'm a Linux guy at heart Microsoft deserves praise on W8.
I'm not sure that doing what they've done before only not as well deserves praise.
That said, I consider mandatory access control a solid win when implemented correctly. Of course, having no experience with "Windows 8" I can't speculate on its implementation.
And I'm a "BSD" guy despite having no form of "BSD" installed on any of my machines.
Soma
I've always liked the minimalist approach that the unix-derived operating systems take. the OS doesn't need to provide all the services. many of them can be added as applications, and keeping the operating system modular helps to give people a better user experience by not installing a bunch of extra crap that you don't need.
How is an operating system not broken if a programmer and even a computer enthusiast cannot operate it?
And how is Vista and 7 forcing UAC on you, while 8 is not? You could disable it in those OSes without any side effects that I am aware of. Yet, this cannot be done in 8.
Yes, Microsoft did some good things in 8, or least put in the foundation work for it. Metro is an absolutely necessary development, and restricted as it is, they should be applauded for putting effort into creating it. Though, as it is now, it seems pretty bad, and Microsoft has a lot of work to do to fix it for the next version of Windows.
what's so necessary about it? people are used to the "standard" desktop model, and it is quite efficient. what does metro do, that a typical modern desktop does not?
I have always believed the only company that can beat Microsoft is itself. There have been some really oddball decisions made at MS in the past few years...more oddball than usual that could make my first statement a reality. Essentially they built a very good OS and threw a crappy tablet type UI on top off it and then force fed it to PC users. Why they would build a GUI to target a market they do not own and in the same process abandon the one they do is beyond me.
After 20 years I am a little tired of having to put up with the crap first to get to the diamond in the rough.Though, as it is now, it seems pretty bad, and Microsoft has a lot of work to do to fix it for the next version of Windows.
Last edited by VirtualAce; 09-02-2012 at 11:03 AM.
The standard desktop model is horrible because:
- The WinAPI is a mess. It is difficult to use, has a lot of gotchas, and requires extreme amount of code to accomplish something.
- Desktop is intrusive. It is difficult to use, and comes with a lot of freedom. Therefore you see lots of people writing bad, inefficient or intrusive code (seen any applications that suddenly pops up dialogs or browser windows out of nowhere lately?).
- It's UGLY. It takes a lot of code, time and experience to write any kind of good GUI.
- It's based on a synchronous model. Ever wondered why the hell the program suddenly freezes when opening a file open dialog (hint: Windows may need to read from floppies, spin up DVD drives, waiting for network locations, etc)?
- Files are stored all over the place. Some applications spit out files to C:\. Some applications store configuration in the program files directory. Some store files in your local user (%appdata%) directory (where they should be!).
- Every application must use their own installer/uninstaller. This puts a lot of work into getting those right and making them clean up after themselves.
- Because applications store stuff all over the place (even in the registry!), it is difficult to know which files to backup or sync if you want your settings to remain constant on all your computers and recover them after a crash, etc.
- Each program sits in the background, sucking up cpu power, memory and other resources, even when they don't need them (ever seen applications that love increasing the resolution of the timers in Windows?).
- They all look different because there is no standardized way of doing things.
- Applications are not sandboxed. They can modify your system settings like crazy (and likely they do!).
Oh, I could go on, and on, and on.
Microsoft is finally taking a step in the right direction to get rid of all legacy crap and making a new modern platform on which to develop applications. I also applaud Microsoft for their App Store, where they properly review applications do they don't do stupid things like desktop apps very often do.
I seriously criticize Microsoft for only allowing installations of Metro Apps from the store, and from taking huge fines from developers.
I can agree with that, though.
Windows is Windows today because it allowed freedom for developers to do pretty much anything they wanted. While a more restrictive OS is a good move for MS as a company it is terrible for their developer and consumers.
But with power comes responsibility. It's fine for them to do what they want, as long as they do it right, and that's why I say Metro is a step in the right direction.
No one wants a horrible mess where the OS ends up unusable becomes of crapware. As I see it, if customers are happy, the companies get fewer complains and more praise, and perhaps as a consequence, more sales.
Only time will tell. Rather than make this a debate about the direction of Microsoft I will finish my thoughts by going on record as saying I think this is a move in the wrong direction. Since MS did not consult me about it in the end it really does not matter one way or the other.
Because of these points I can only picture an ugly GUI that everyone copied and made a de facto standard, because it was some geniuses idea of "perfect". The standard look really has no artistic value to me and I get bored of looking at the same thing, no matter how functional it is. I rather expect software to stay consistent from version to version. If instead every application was laid out the same way, that would be silly. Yeah, so in example, winAMP can be as different as it wants from windows and it still makes sense. But move information or features around constantly (firefox), and I'll need a cigarette to get over it, and get used to the "new" thing.- It's UGLY. It takes a lot of code, time and experience to write any kind of good GUI.
- They all look different because there is no standardized way of doing things.
It's funny that something with no organization is still part of the model or even a model at all.- Files are stored all over the place. Some applications spit out files to C:\. Some applications store configuration in the program files directory. Some store files in your local user (%appdata%) directory (where they should be!).
- Every application must use their own installer/uninstaller. This puts a lot of work into getting those right and making them clean up after themselves.
- Because applications store stuff all over the place (even in the registry!), it is difficult to know which files to backup or sync if you want your settings to remain constant on all your computers and recover them after a crash, etc.
Portable installation has mitigated these problems on the windows platform, as you've probably figured out. (I'm talking about programs being compressed and being usable after decompression, instead of needing tons of regkeys just to work.) I don't remember when this started showing up, but that was one development I liked in the world. In my opinion, it can be a better choice than your typical desktop installations and upgrades. Of course, with corporate software, you use what they put out and there are reasons behind that.
I enjoyed having the responsibility, personally. I never thought of it as Microsoft's. I don't think anyone can stop what's happening though. Progress be damned! Koyaanisqatsi....But with power comes responsibility. It's fine for them to do what they want, as long as they do it right, and that's why I say Metro is a step in the right direction.
Wow. A "Windows" flavored Apple fanboy. ^_^Metro is an absolutely necessary development, and restricted as it is, they should be applauded for putting effort into creating it.
Some of those things are the only reason "Windows" is such a beast.The standard desktop model is horrible because:
Nope. I'm not joking.
The popularity of "Windows" has always been because a lot of programmers and hardware vendors flocked to it; they went for it because of those "problems". I'll give you a couple of examples.
Keeping the terrible API showed programmers that a serious effort was made to keep programs and drivers working.
The freedom to do "whatever" gave Microsoft innovations from others that they would later copy into the core.
I honestly can't tell if you are dreaming or just going fanboy; I'll start with this: it will always take a lot of code, time, and experience to make something useful (or fun), efficient, and secure.It takes a lot of code, time and experience to write any kind of good GUI.
Microsoft can't change that.
"Metro" can't change that.
Some of the things that you are complaining about are only complaints because lazy or inexperienced programmers didn't want to follow industrial guidelines. If programmers aren't willing to put in the effort, "Metro" will only mask such problems and only for a time.
Soma
If I were handed a program written in C from someone regular on this board, I'd probably feel safe enough to use it. But if it were from Average Joe, then I wouldn't touch it with anything else than a 10 meter long pole.
Thankfully everyone is this world is as seasoned and good at programming C as the regular members of this board... wait, no, that's not right. It's the inverse!
Point being: while you like the responsibility (nothing wrong with that), I, as an end user, wouldn't want Average Joe to have that responsibility because you can be sure they'd screw it up.
I don't expect everything to work with a snap of the fingers, but I do expect it will be easier than before. If it's easier to achieve something than before without sacrificing critical functionality, then it's a win situation.
How many programmers these days follow guidelines, or even know guidelines or can put implement them correctly? Answer: only a handful. Even professional software with tons of users have glaring problems, such as popping up dialog boxes just suddenly from everywhere, and this is precisely the problem. People are not going to change. The only way to change this nonsensical behavior is to smack them in the ass, or force them to do it the right way by taking away the ability to do it the wrong way.
But then again, why do they pop up a dialog box instead of a notification? Perhaps because it's so damn convulted and difficult to make a notification instead of dialog box? Yes, there might be something in that... among other things.
