Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Nov 2012 15:17 UTC
Windows "As we pass the one month anniversary of the general availability of Windows 8, we are pleased to announce that to-date Microsoft has sold 40 million Windows 8 licenses. Tami Reller shared this news with industry and financial analysts, investors and media today at the Credit Suisse 2012 Annual Technology Conference. Windows 8 is outpacing Windows 7 in terms of upgrades." Not bad, but there are the usual asterisks, as Ars notes.
Order by: Score:
Yeah.
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 28th Nov 2012 15:36 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

But how many of those "licenses" were actually bought for upgrading or installing on an previous machine?

Microsoft needs to differentiate "full/upgrade" installs from PCs that come loaded with the latest OEM version of Windows with no other choice. Until then, their numbers are meaningless, as always. Obviously all the OEMs are going to go out and buy millions upon millions of licenses of the latest Windows to stick on their machines and call it a feature and claim that their system is fully up to date, but what about normal Windows users--the end user, not the middleman?

Reply Score: 11

RE: Yeah.
by Drumhellar on Wed 28th Nov 2012 19:21 UTC in reply to "Yeah."
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

They don't give the numbers, buy the Ars article says that Windows 8 upgrade license sales are outpacing Windows 7 upgrade license sales, with a pair of caveats:

1. Windows 8 is a bigger upgrade, but the upgrade is significantly cheaper (until January, that is).

2. It isn't known how many people are just buying the upgrade and keeping it on a shelf, hedging against an increased upgrade cost in the future.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yeah.
by tylerdurden on Wed 28th Nov 2012 23:40 UTC in reply to "Yeah."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Why? It does not make a difference, a license is a license. The granularity or location of the sale seems irrelevant, as long as desktop and laptop PCs sell microsoft will sell tons of windows licenses since they have a near monopoly in that space.

My assumption is that windows 8 will do great in the consumer space, the touch screen is a great gimmick and gives OEMs a new "differentiation" to help push people upgrade or buy new systems. I assume business will skip this upgrade cycle, since Metro is useless in most of their applications.

I'm more interested in the Windows Phone and Surface sales. Since those are the areas of biggest growth, and microsoft lacks a monopoly to leverage there.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Yeah.
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 29th Nov 2012 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Why? It does not make a difference, a license is a license. The granularity or location of the sale seems irrelevant, as long as desktop and laptop PCs sell microsoft will sell tons of windows licenses since they have a near monopoly in that space.

A [most likely] forced license with a new PC sale vs. a license that the user willfully purchased. That's the difference, and it's a huge one.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Yeah.
by tylerdurden on Thu 29th Nov 2012 01:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

It is not a huge difference, it is an attempt to split hairs in order to build whatever argument based on pure appeal to emotion. I.e. nobody is forcing anyone to buy a PC running windows at gun point.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Yeah.
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 29th Nov 2012 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yeah."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

It is not a huge difference, it is an attempt to split hairs in order to build whatever argument based on pure appeal to emotion. I.e. nobody is forcing anyone to buy a PC running windows at gun point.

What's the alternative? A cheaply-made yet over-priced Mac without even the ability to easily swap parts and an even more locked down OS? Those Windows 7 PCs that OEMs are already trying to send to the sidelines, as they have already made Windows 8 the default in most cases, and will eventually try to ditch completely soon enough?

Edited 2012-11-29 02:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Yeah.
by tylerdurden on Thu 29th Nov 2012 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yeah."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

What's the alternative? Well, there are vendors that sell linux machines, at pretty good prices. Or you can assemble your own computer and run whatever OS your heart desires for that configuration.

At the end of the day, 40 million licenses were sold. You may not like that fact, which is why I felt these sort of nitpicking arguments are trying to establish an appeal to emotion (Probably because Windows 8 hasn't turned out to be the disaster some posters in this forum expected it to be) I see little difference between someone buying a new PC with Windows 8 or upgrading their existing Windows installation, at the end of the day both processes involve someone willingly purchasing a Microsoft product. And yes, I am sure Microsoft is picking whichever statistic that better fits their corporate narrative, e.g. I don't think they have released the actual numbers of Windows phone/surface devices because those numbers probably don't look that good. And that was expected, given how Microsoft does not have a monopoly in those markets so they tend to be SOL.

But in this day and age, if someone wants to completely avoid Microsoft products on their desktops, they actually have the choice to do so. I'm typing this message from a microsot-free machine, for what it is worth.

Edited 2012-11-29 20:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Yeah.
by Bobthearch on Thu 29th Nov 2012 02:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah."
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

A [most likely] forced license with a new PC sale vs. a license that the user willfully purchased. That's the difference, and it's a huge one.


Isn't the same thing true with Windows 7 licenses a couple of years ago and XP licenses way back when?

That's the point, comparing Windows 8 to previous versions. The comparison is no good if different methods are used.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Yeah.
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 29th Nov 2012 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yeah."
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

The problem is, Windows sales statistics always were bullshit, and they will always work in Microsoft's favor as long as things stay the way they have been. No new Windows release is going to stop the sales of PCs, and Microsoft has all the OEMs right in their pockets.

Traditionally all so-called "Windows sales," for the most part, have really been PC sales and/or mass OEM purchases. Trying to use these supposed Windows sales figures as any kind of real data for comparisons to actual OS sales of Windows 7, Vista or any other version of Windows is just downright stupid. They're all mangled to the point of complete uselessness.

Chances are, today there are more computer users and more computers in circulation than ever more, and both numbers are continuing to grow. Meanwhile, as they grow, the numbers of people buying new, replacement machines for older and/or broken ones increases. These machines will undoubtedly come with Windows 8. Are you seriously claiming that all of these were deliberate impulse buys just to get Windows 8 as an impulse buy and be an early adopter?

Of course... Drumhellar brought up some very good points, that basically the results are skewed even further from Microsoft's heavy "upgrade" discounts, so in reality, the Windows 8 "sales" are probably even more corrupt than ever before.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Yeah.
by zima on Tue 4th Dec 2012 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Yeah."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not a "problem" - it makes no difference; either way, Windows is successful (much more than desktop alternatives).

Did you complain similarly about OEM sales when Dell was selling netbooks with Ubuntu? (or generally few other early Linux netbooks)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Yeah.
by zima on Sat 1st Dec 2012 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

A [most likely] forced license with a new PC sale vs. a license that the user willfully purchased. That's the difference, and it's a huge one.

"Forced"? Keep telling yourself that... People like and want Windows, it's almost certainly pirated more than the number of desktop Linux users.

Nearby you ask "What's the alternative?" WRT "nobody is forcing anyone to buy a PC running windows at gun point" - well... get a laptop without OS, or with Linux.

Visiting "laptops" category of ceneo.pl (possibly the most popular and well-known here catalogue of products and online shops; surely you have similar services...) quite often shows a model without Windows at the top of popularity; and generally, "no OS" & "Linux"* filters give http://www.ceneo.pl/Laptopy;017P8-250094-250095.htm few hundred results. But BTW, most of those machines end up with Windows, anyway (oh, and that's no-crapware-included Windows) - at best a MSDNAA license.


*that's often just a smokescreen of the reputable big PC maker, who can say ~"we don't facilitate piracy, all of our machines are sold with an operating system" or such. Devil is often in the details: in one case I've seen, it was just a Knoppix live-DVD thrown into the box; in another, some Linux installation which didn't and couldn't boot into X, Linux lacked support for the GFX chip in that laptop. Few years ago, one reputable PC maker even sold laptops with "DOS2000"...

Reply Score: 2

Usage Stats
by Alfman on Wed 28th Nov 2012 16:14 UTC
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

"Reller offered some other numbers to suggest that consumers were getting along with Windows 8 better than some expected: 90 percent of users manage to use the charms on their first day, 50 percent visit the Windows Store on the first day, and 85 percent launch the desktop on the first day."

Where does this information come from? Does microsoft keep tabs on all users through some kind of phone home mechanism? Or is this an estimate based on a study group?

I wonder what other information is being collected?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Usage Stats
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 28th Nov 2012 16:33 UTC in reply to "Usage Stats"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is called the Customer Experience Improvement Program or something, and is opt-in, and has been for almost a decade. It's very well-documented.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Usage Stats
by Alfman on Wed 28th Nov 2012 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Usage Stats"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Thom_Holwerda,
"This is called the Customer Experience Improvement Program or something, and is opt-in, and has been for almost a decade. It's very well-documented."

Wow really?

I'd like to know who's included in this because I just finished installing two win7 machines and I did not get any opportunity to opt in or opt out of this. As far as I'm aware these machines are not reporting back to MS.

The pages I found explain vaguely what CEIP is, but not what products it's included for, or when one is prompted to opt in.

http://www.microsoft.com/products/ceip/en-us/privacypolicy.mspx

What I found for opt out instructions are application specific. Am I right to assume CEIP is only installed with specific applications? Maybe that's why I hadn't seen it before. I don't use outlook, which apparently has CEIP.

http://www.groovypost.com/howto/disable-microsoft-office-customer-e...
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb693975.aspx
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd297945.aspx

Edit:

There's a bit more information here, it looks it's a part of window 7 too, but I haven't seen the screen that's pictured there. On my copy it's disabled. I'm curious when users are supposed to be asked to opt in, is it possible OEMs just shipped it that way?

http://www.verboon.info/index.php/2011/04/the-microsoft-customer-ex...

Edited 2012-11-28 17:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Usage Stats
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 19:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Usage Stats"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It asks on the installation if you want to participate. Most Microsoft programs ask you whether you are willing (including Visual Studio and SQL Server Manager) to send usage data back to them.

I tend to say no, but they do actually say that they send the data anonymously ... it is stated quite clearly.

Reply Score: 2

Not impressive
by Casey99 on Wed 28th Nov 2012 16:23 UTC
Casey99
Member since:
2011-07-14

Considering how cheap Windows 8 costs as an upgrade, I would say 40 million is an unimpressive number. And I think it is pretty safe to say that it will be harder to convince the next 40 million to buy Windows 8 than it was for the early adopters.

I don't plan on ever using Windows 8. Windows 7 is my last Windows.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Not impressive
by maccouch on Wed 28th Nov 2012 18:53 UTC in reply to "Not impressive"
maccouch Member since:
2012-03-14

exactly. I don't think most people or even finantial analysts realized that Microsoft has just halved or more, their Windows revenues just to slightly keep up adoption rhythm.

Windows8 is being sold in a larger market than 2009 Windows7 launch, and at less than half of its price and at best it gets the same number of sales of Windows 7 in the first months. I don't think this is particularly brilliant or a good omen.

(wrote the same thing yesterday: http://www.maccouch.com/2012/11/microsoft-weve-sold-40-million-wind... )

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not impressive
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Not impressive"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

TBH I suspect this might be because they are the victim of their own success.

Windows 7 as a Desktop operating system is pretty damn solid and I am pretty sure it is going to be the next Windows XP. TBH, while I am using 8 at home, apart from the Metro UI ... it is very similar on the desktop.

Edited 2012-11-28 19:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not impressive
by Nelson on Thu 29th Nov 2012 03:31 UTC in reply to "Not impressive"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Only in OSNews bizarro land is 40 million licenses sold a commercial failure.

Microsoft has said both that Windows 8 has sold 40 million licenses and that Windows 8 is outpacing Windows 7 in upgrades.

People undoubtedly will try to pick the numbers apart and twist them to suit their needs (Something or another about forced pre-installations, OEM sales, yada yada) but what they fail to realize is that the way that sales are counted between Windows 7 and Windows 8 has not changed.

That means that using the SAME metrics that Microsoft used for Windows 7, Windows 8 is doing well.

The Windows Store has exploded in growth in the past month doubling from 10,000 to over 20,000 apps.

I know developer friends of mine that get 12,000 downloads a day and make 300 dollars a day in ad revenue. This is the most vibrant ecosystem, and probably the modern day gold rush.

Sorry, our Metro overlords are here to stay.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Not impressive
by zima on Sat 1st Dec 2012 08:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Not impressive"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The Windows Store [...] is the most vibrant ecosystem, and probably the modern day gold rush.

Though, for how long? Apple store also had its gold rush.

And you know, the thing with gold rushes - those selling shovels and such were the only group making real money...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not impressive
by Lennie on Thu 29th Nov 2012 15:33 UTC in reply to "Not impressive"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

And I know people who have already gone with Apple instead of Windows.

Personally I've been a Linux users for a long time.

Reply Score: 1

But....
by TemporalBeing on Wed 28th Nov 2012 17:39 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

How many of those were "downgraded" to Win7?
How many of those were Win8->Win8 upgrades? (e.g. User didn't like the edition that came and tried upgrading to a higher level).
In the end, how much is real sales vs. double counting?

The issue with quoting numbers from WinVista and Win7 is that there was double and triple counting of sales in there. The question is, how much of that is going on with Win8?

All-in-all, not impressed.

And, BTW, I'll only use Win8 in a proper environment - in a virtual machine where Windows belongs.

Reply Score: 0

RE: But....
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 19:41 UTC in reply to "But...."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

How many of those were "downgraded" to Win7?
How many of those were Win8->Win8 upgrades? (e.g. User didn't like the edition that came and tried upgrading to a higher level).
In the end, how much is real sales vs. double counting?

The issue with quoting numbers from WinVista and Win7 is that there was double and triple counting of sales in there. The question is, how much of that is going on with Win8?

All-in-all, not impressed.


Any proof of any of this? Probably not.

And, BTW, I'll only use Win8 in a proper environment - in a virtual machine where Windows belongs.


Oh good for you. Can you open source Linux guys just leave the snide remarks for once. Every thread that even mentions Microsoft you gotta mention how crap it is.

Windows 7 and 8 are perfectly good Operating systems. XP and Vista were a bit flakey until a couple of service packs, but have been pretty solid.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: But....
by TemporalBeing on Wed 28th Nov 2012 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE: But...."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"How many of those were "downgraded" to Win7?
How many of those were Win8->Win8 upgrades? (e.g. User didn't like the edition that came and tried upgrading to a higher level).
In the end, how much is real sales vs. double counting?

The issue with quoting numbers from WinVista and Win7 is that there was double and triple counting of sales in there. The question is, how much of that is going on with Win8?

All-in-all, not impressed.


Any proof of any of this? Probably not.


The sales numbers they were providing were proof enough.

Sales are based on licenses sold. Vista Pro included a license for XP, so did Win7. During the first few months when MS was claiming record sales, it was also shown that most were reverted to XP systems. So, sale of Vista/Win7 did not necessarily mean someone using Win7.

Now add to it the fact that with WinVista and even more so with WinXP, most got a very limited version of Windows (sale #1), and would therefore need to upgrade the version (sale #2). While one can technically count these as separate sales of separate licenses (they are), it would in fact be double-dipping the sale for the same system. So unless you differentiate this in the numbers (which was not likely) then you have inflated numbers.

My question is - are they doing the same with Win8. There are certainly fewer versions, but as Win8 systems seem to be sitting on the shelves their sales of 40 million in the first month seem a little unbelievable - it's not like 7.5% of the US population went out and bought a new computer in 1 month - and if its world-wide, that's even less remarkable.

[q][q]And, BTW, I'll only use Win8 in a proper environment - in a virtual machine where Windows belongs.


Oh good for you. Can you open source Linux guys just leave the snide remarks for once. Every thread that even mentions Microsoft you gotta mention how crap it is.

Windows 7 and 8 are perfectly good Operating systems. XP and Vista were a bit flakey until a couple of service packs, but have been pretty solid.
"

WinXP was hardly flaky at any point in its life. Just like Win2k, and Win7 they were all pretty solid releases. The issue with XP is the interface - its very eX-Professional - very childish.

WinVista's biggest issue was driver support and that was primarily due to MS changing driver interfaces at the last moment - between RC2 and RTM. The other big issue was UAC - something MS had been warning developers about for a long time.

Win8's biggest issue is the UI. I'm sure its just as stable as and better performing than Win7 - namely due to the Windws Dev process put in place since the start of Vista.

However, Windows still remains a major security whole, and one that can only be plugged properly in a virtual environment. it's just the design of the system and its APIs. It's yet to be seen whether the WinRT API will help resolve the security issues of Win32 - I haven't looked at it very closely yet.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: But....
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: But...."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18



The sales numbers they were providing were proof enough.

Sales are based on licenses sold. Vista Pro included a license for XP, so did Win7. During the first few months when MS was claiming record sales, it was also shown that most were reverted to XP systems. So, sale of Vista/Win7 did not necessarily mean someone using Win7.


Doesn't really matter, Gym memberships work on this very principle. Also even if you half the numbers it is still pretty impressive the number of sales.

Now add to it the fact that with WinVista and even more so with WinXP, most got a very limited version of Windows (sale #1), and would therefore need to upgrade the version (sale #2). While one can technically count these as separate sales of separate licenses (they are), it would in fact be double-dipping the sale for the same system. So unless you differentiate this in the numbers (which was not likely) then you have inflated numbers.


Again it is still a purchase, it is still money going into the kitty.

Also interestingly, nobody criticises Adobe for this pricing model ... Would it be soo hard to consider that they are rewarding existing customers by lowering the price for the update?

My question is - are they doing the same with Win8. There are certainly fewer versions, but as Win8 systems seem to be sitting on the shelves their sales of 40 million in the first month seem a little unbelievable - it's not like 7.5% of the US population went out and bought a new computer in 1 month - and if its world-wide, that's even less remarkable.


At worst count we are still talking millions of licenses sold.

WinXP was hardly flaky at any point in its life. Just like Win2k, and Win7 they were all pretty solid releases. The issue with XP is the interface - its very eX-Professional - very childish.


Actually Windows XP was very flakey. There was piss poor support from programs at the time (most used hacks from the Windows 9x line). Some drivers just didn't exist (OpenGL on S3 cards was just a no-no and S3 cards were fairly common or SIS cards in Laptops).

Most of the time you could use a Windows 2000 driver, but I have run into cases when you couldn't.

Let not forget about the MS blaster worm.

Also the default display driver in Windows XP RTM does not support anything past 1024x768 ... thankfully I found nlite.

WinVista's biggest issue was driver support and that was primarily due to MS changing driver interfaces at the last moment - between RC2 and RTM. The other big issue was UAC - something MS had been warning developers about for a long time.


I fail to see how UAC is any different to OSX and Ubuntus "sudoing" to admin.

UAC was a good thing IMHO. I know it isn't perfect, but at least made people pay attention to the installer.

Modern problems with XP were that it was painful to install updates, Windows Vista, 7 and 8 they just happen in the background and I can still use my PC.

Win8's biggest issue is the UI. I'm sure its just as stable as and better performing than Win7 - namely due to the Windws Dev process put in place since the start of Vista.


The Metro/Modern UI is a matter of debate, but it doesn't mean that Windows 8 is insecure OS or that it isn't functional in Desktop mode (tbh I really haven't missed the start menu).

However, Windows still remains a major security whole, and one that can only be plugged properly in a virtual environment. it's just the design of the system and its APIs. It's yet to be seen whether the WinRT API will help resolve the security issues of Win32 - I haven't looked at it very closely yet.


Actually Windows has been pretty damn secure since VISTA, most of the exploits require a user actually running code as Admin ... no system not even OpenBSD/Linux etc can protect against that.

There aren't many holes when it comes to the actual OS itself. It is rely on the user being dumb. The only virus that has been successful was Stuxnet, which took security experts years to decipher its inner workings.

Unlike MacOSX which still ships on Mac with the firewall turned off.

I really wish these myths from the past (which was true until Windows XP SP2) that you keep clinging onto are laid to rest.

And if you even quote the number of malware for Windows, it is because it is the most popular desktop OS, not because it is insecure ... Android has had similar problems (and Nokia smart phones early 2000s ... bluetooth viruses).

The same security precautions on Windows can be said about any OS.

This isn't 2001 anymore.

Edited 2012-11-28 21:20 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: But....
by WereCatf on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: But...."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Actually Windows XP was very flakey.


Especially before the first service packs, what with no firewall and plenty of completely open services that had no security whatsoever. Even after service packs XP was and still is full of holes.

I fail to see how UAC is any different to OSX and Ubuntus "sudoing" to admin.

UAC was a good thing IMHO. I know it isn't perfect, but at least made people pay attention to the installer.


Indeed, there isn't much of a difference between UAC and how e.g. Ubuntu does things, the problem instead lies mostly with applications insisting on needing admin rights; the constant demand for admin rights just trains people to ignore UAC prompts and just click on the "yes" - thingy, something that even I do these days before I've even noticed it. Applications and games should really, really drop that behaviour, and even installers should only request for admin rights if the user wishes to install the app/game system-wise; the sane, more secure default would be to install these per user, thereby also not showing up the UAC prompt.

The Metro/Modern UI is a matter of debate, but it doesn't mean that Windows 8 is insecure OS or that it isn't functional in Desktop mode (tbh I really haven't missed the start menu).


On my laptop I installed Start8, disabled Metro, disabled hot corners, and set the system to boot straight to desktop; there isn't really any difference between that and Windows 7 except the theme, and therefore it is indeed just as functional. It may not be worth the upgrade from Windows 7, but it is plenty worth it if one is using WinXP or Vista.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: But....
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: But...."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18


Indeed, there isn't much of a difference between UAC and how e.g. Ubuntu does things, the problem instead lies mostly with applications insisting on needing admin rights; the constant demand for admin rights just trains people to ignore UAC prompts and just click on the "yes" - thingy, something that even I do these days before I've even noticed it. Applications and games should really, really drop that behaviour, and even installers should only request for admin rights if the user wishes to install the app/game system-wise; the sane, more secure default would be to install these per user, thereby also not showing up the UAC prompt.


1. Doesn't it also train users who are Ubuntu users to prefix everything with Sudo in the command terminal, without actually checking the script out?

There was a blog called "ubuntard" (doesn't exist anymore) that actually highlighting (with a lot of profanity) some commands that people were putting on ubuntu forums and saying they should run as a sudoer or root and some of them could easily destroy the OS or the entire MBR. NOT GOOD!.

2. On your second point. One thing I don't like about unix style security is that it saves the system, but the users home directory can still be destroyed.

On a home system, what is stored in the /home or the equivalent IMO is more important than the system which can be just replaced.

On my laptop I installed Start8, disabled Metro, disabled hot corners, and set the system to boot straight to desktop; there isn't really any difference between that and Windows 7 except the theme, and therefore it is indeed just as functional. It may not be worth the upgrade from Windows 7, but it is plenty worth it if one is using WinXP or Vista.


I agree that the start menu is a topic of contention, but I most agree with your assessment.

I don't particularly have a lot of love for the start menu or start screen, applications I used regularly are pinned anyway ... no big deal for me.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: But....
by WereCatf on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: But...."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

1. Doesn't it also train users who are Ubuntu users to prefix everything with Sudo in the command terminal, without actually checking the script out?


Well, the difference is in that that actually writing something down yourself is a much more conscious effort than clicking twice. Also, a not-so-geek user wouldn't be typing scripts down anyways.

2. On your second point. One thing I don't like about unix style security is that it saves the system, but the users home directory can still be destroyed.


That is something I've mentioned multiple times in the past, but alas, you may not have read my comments; I've expressed the wish that someone would come up with a new OS where all applications by default are sandboxed and only given access to their own files, and that users could grant or deny permissions to any extraneous files and/or services. By default NO APPLICATION OR GAME should have access to all of the users' files.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: But....
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: But...."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well, the difference is in that that actually writing something down yourself is a much more conscious effort than clicking twice. Also, a not-so-geek user wouldn't be typing scripts down anyways.


Not so, a lot of users copy and paste unfortunately. In fact a lot of developers do as well.

That is something I've mentioned multiple times in the past, but alas, you may not have read my comments; I've expressed the wish that someone would come up with a new OS where all applications by default are sandboxed and only given access to their own files, and that users could grant or deny permissions to any extraneous files and/or services. By default NO APPLICATION OR GAME should have access to all of the users' files.


I hear you. I probably haven't seen it otherwise I would agree, not sure about about the sand-boxing would work via application that read the same file type, but nonetheless I agree with the principle.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: But....
by Dave_K on Thu 29th Nov 2012 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: But...."
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

Well, the difference is in that that actually writing something down yourself is a much more conscious effort than clicking twice. Also, a not-so-geek user wouldn't be typing scripts down anyways.


On Linux forums confused newbies are routinely told to open a terminal and copy/paste strings of commands, often when the task could have been accomplished entirely from the GUI. Of course it's usually quicker for an experienced Linux user to write the commands rather than explaining how to find and use a graphical tool.

In my experience most of those users simply copy and paste and hope for the best, without any knowledge of what they're actually doing. I've seen that cause serious problems on more than one occasion.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: But....
by Lennie on Thu 29th Nov 2012 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: But...."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

2. On your second point. One thing I don't like about unix style security is that it saves the system, but the users home directory can still be destroyed.

On a home system, what is stored in the /home or the equivalent IMO is more important than the system which can be just replaced.


That is what backup is for, at least now you don't need to rebuild the whole system and other home directories are still safe.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: But....
by TemporalBeing on Thu 29th Nov 2012 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: But...."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"

The sales numbers they were providing were proof enough.

Sales are based on licenses sold. Vista Pro included a license for XP, so did Win7. During the first few months when MS was claiming record sales, it was also shown that most were reverted to XP systems. So, sale of Vista/Win7 did not necessarily mean someone using Win7.


Doesn't really matter, Gym memberships work on this very principle. Also even if you half the numbers it is still pretty impressive the number of sales.
"

But we're not talking about Gym memberships.

We're talking about Microsoft boasting about its sales and its misleading practice in how those numbers are determined. Two very different things.

"Now add to it the fact that with WinVista and even more so with WinXP, most got a very limited version of Windows (sale #1), and would therefore need to upgrade the version (sale #2). While one can technically count these as separate sales of separate licenses (they are), it would in fact be double-dipping the sale for the same system. So unless you differentiate this in the numbers (which was not likely) then you have inflated numbers.


Again it is still a purchase, it is still money going into the kitty.
"

Yes, it is money in the kitty.

Questions is: How many would have only purchased one license for what gave them what they wanted first if they were able to? Or if they were informed properly? Or if the product level did what they wanted?

The point is that the change in how Windows licenses were structured from XP to Vista and how those licenses were counted and compared was entirely misleading.

Also interestingly, nobody criticises Adobe for this pricing model ... Would it be soo hard to consider that they are rewarding existing customers by lowering the price for the update?


Adobe doesn't do the same thing, and hasn't changed the pricing model and compared apples-to-oranges boasting about its sales.


"WinVista's biggest issue was driver support and that was primarily due to MS changing driver interfaces at the last moment - between RC2 and RTM. The other big issue was UAC - something MS had been warning developers about for a long time.


I fail to see how UAC is any different to OSX and Ubuntus "sudoing" to admin.

UAC was a good thing IMHO. I know it isn't perfect, but at least made people pay attention to the installer.
"

I agree, UAC is very much like the sudo functionalities in other OS's. The problem was not the introduction of it, but rather the lack of software being ready for it.

For MacOSX, there was a very clear line - the OS8/9 to OSX transition. Pre-OSX applications didn't have to concern themselves with a UAC feature, and OSX applications by had to by the very nature of the underlying OS that Apple adopted.

However, historically MS has been sloppy in APIs which require Admin/root privileges, and those which they've encouraged developers to use. As a result, many applications and APIs used functionality that was only suppose to be used by an administrator. When UAC was introduced, applications simply were not ready.

Now, it's not entirely MS's fault - MS had been telling application developers that the change was coming for several years.

So the issue with Vista was not so UAC itself, but how often the UAC interface came up due. Most of this was fixed by Win7, but it was considered a black mark for Vista - rightly or wrongly.

"Win8's biggest issue is the UI. I'm sure its just as stable as and better performing than Win7 - namely due to the Windws Dev process put in place since the start of Vista.


The Metro/Modern UI is a matter of debate, but it doesn't mean that Windows 8 is insecure OS or that it isn't functional in Desktop mode (tbh I really haven't missed the start menu).

However, Windows still remains a major security whole, and one that can only be plugged properly in a virtual environment. it's just the design of the system and its APIs. It's yet to be seen whether the WinRT API will help resolve the security issues of Win32 - I haven't looked at it very closely yet.


Actually Windows has been pretty damn secure since VISTA, most of the exploits require a user actually running code as Admin ... no system not even OpenBSD/Linux etc can protect against that.
"

SELinux has the ability to. While it is not used much by normal desktop users, Linux has security capabilities that go far beyond what Windows has.

There aren't many holes when it comes to the actual OS itself. It is rely on the user being dumb. The only virus that has been successful was Stuxnet, which took security experts years to decipher its inner workings.


There are still many holes; many bugs that were reported back in Win3/95/4/XP/Vista/7 that are still there in Win8. Microsoft's policy is that they don't fix it unless it's being actively taken advantage of.

Now the changes in development method introduced during the development of Vista will certainly help. For example, Microsoft has had a very poor history of keeping fixes in places - it was a common occurrence that one patch would fix a bug and another would re-introduce it; and not uncommon for that to happen multiple times. With the refactoring that has been going on since the start of development for Vista that should be more under control - at least one would hope.

Unlike MacOSX which still ships on Mac with the firewall turned off.


Most OS's are secure by default. Thus a firewall is not necessary. On Unix systems (of which OS X is part of) what you can do is limited - you can only open a port below 1024 if you are root; and if you are not root, any damage is limited to the user the software is running as. It is the same on Linux.

And if you even quote the number of malware for Windows, it is because it is the most popular desktop OS, not because it is insecure ... Android has had similar problems (and Nokia smart phones early 2000s ... bluetooth viruses).


The malware for Windows is only in part due to its popularity. It is also (and more importantly) due to the design of the OS and the security issues that are prevalent within it. It is furthered by OEMs taking money to pre-install software that users may not otherwise want or buy.

And, Android does not really have an issue with Malware or Viruses. Yes, there are people that write some malicious stuff for Android; however, just like any other non-Windows OS the user has to specifically install it and grant it permission to do what it wants to do. Android itself has a far better security model than Windows ever had.

[p]The same security precautions on Windows can be said about any OS. [/q]

Windows - even Windows 8 - does not have the security precautions of the other OS's out there.

Windows was designed for a single user that, just like DOS, had full access and control of all the hardware. Security was an after thought for Windows.

Comparatively, all others OS's on the market - Linux, Mac OSX, VXworks, etc - were designed for multiple users from the start and as such security was designed in - even if only in basic form - from the start.

Before you start spouting off on how security is not an issue for any other OS because of MS's market size, learn a bit about the design differences between Windows and everyone else - they're very important when it comes to security.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: But....
by lucas_maximus on Fri 30th Nov 2012 02:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: But...."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well that was a lot of rubbish.

Pretty much everything you said may have been true until about 2003, which is almost 10 years ago now.

Also Windows has their equivalents to pretty much every security feature you could list of Linux.

Sorry ... keeping the firewall off is still dumb.

Also NT has always been designed as a multi-user OS, it just the desktop versions of Windows only allow one person logged it at a time (well that isn't really true anymore either).

Edited 2012-11-30 02:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: But....
by TemporalBeing on Fri 30th Nov 2012 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: But...."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Also Windows has their equivalents to pretty much every security feature you could list of Linux.


If that were true, then Windows would have an equivalent security level for government use. It does not.

Windows cannot receive the same security rating as Linux, which is in a category shared by only one other system - Trusted Solaris - and reached by the Red Hat RHEL distribution, if not SuSe as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: But....
by lucas_maximus on Fri 30th Nov 2012 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: But...."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Government moves much more slowly than the tech world.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: But....
by zima on Tue 4th Dec 2012 13:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: But...."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Wall of text doesn't make you right...

Most OS's are secure by default. Thus a firewall is not necessary. [...] if you are not root, any damage is limited to the user the software is running as. It is the same on Linux.

As it is on Windows.

Windows - even Windows 8 - does not have the security precautions of the other OS's out there.
Windows was designed for a single user that, just like DOS, had full access and control of all the hardware. Security was an after thought for Windows.
Comparatively, all others OS's on the market - Linux, Mac OSX, VXworks, etc - were designed for multiple users from the start and as such security was designed in - even if only in basic form - from the start.

Just brush aside how Android also has quite a bit of malware...

Generally, you also have to install malware yourself on Windows. You also seem to be mixing win9x with NT ...one would think you'd have a clue after two decades. And VxWorks is used mostly in limited embedded stuff.

BTW, judging from the initial announcements Linus Torvalds made, Linux was meant as a toy project for him - so, one could say, not strictly "designed for multi-user from the start".

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: But....
by Lennie on Thu 29th Nov 2012 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: But...."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

You do know that a virtual environment does not give any security garantees ?

It is just an other layer of extra code and (security) bugs.

Not being able to use proper encryption because of bad random seeding also is a big issue in virtual environments.

If you want some security and virtualization, then I suggest QEMU/KVM but with SELinux to contain it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: But....
by TemporalBeing on Thu 29th Nov 2012 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: But...."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

You do know that a virtual environment does not give any security garantees ?

It is just an other layer of extra code and (security) bugs.


Yes, virtual environments have their own issues.
However, they also mitigate many - not only do you need to penetrate the OS you're running in, you also have to penetrate the virtual environment and its hosts - which is made a lot more difficult when the host and guest OS's are not the same (as is my case).

So for me - you would have to penetrate Windows, VMware On Linux, and then the Linux OS; and if you wanted to do anything beyond what my Linux user could do, you'd have to do a root penetration as well - this all assuming I don't suspend/shutdown the guest OS while you're trying to do it.

There is also much less software installed in that environment that could lead to a penetration to start with.

Not being able to use proper encryption because of bad random seeding also is a big issue in virtual environments.


Now you're assuming I need encryption within the virtual environment. While some may, I don't.

Even so, you can install hardware encryption technology into the VM if you needed it. So that is not really an issue. VMware, VirtualBox, QEMU, KVM, and others are also smart enough to use the underlying OS for things that require such functionality as well.

If you want some security and virtualization, then I suggest QEMU/KVM but with SELinux to contain it.


Agreed.

My primary purpose is software development and testing, not every day use. The most those systems use the Internet is for updating the tools using Windows Update.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: But....
by zima on Tue 4th Dec 2012 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: But...."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Owning one of the OS within a VM setup can still give a lot of leeway...

My primary purpose is software development and testing, not every day use. The most those systems use the Internet is for updating the tools using Windows Update.

But this is the best part - you said it yourself, you hardly use Windows in the first place.

Edited 2012-12-04 13:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: But....
by zima on Tue 4th Dec 2012 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: But...."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

WinXP was hardly flaky at any point in its life. Just like Win2k, and Win7 they were all pretty solid releases.

XP was a massive pain pre-SP2. Win2k was from the blissful days of pre-internet security mindset.

Windows still remains a major security whole, and one that can only be plugged properly in a virtual environment. it's just the design of the system and its APIs

Security-wise, there's nothing wrong with Windows itself since Vista; it's just unsafe practices of devs and users, to which any OS would be susceptible.

Reply Score: 2

Only 15M licenses in reality
by gpsnoopy on Wed 28th Nov 2012 17:44 UTC
gpsnoopy
Member since:
2007-04-17

According to tech research firm StatCounter, about 1 percent of the world's 1.5 billion or so personal computers - making a total of around 15 million - are actually running Windows 8.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/us-microsoft-windows-idUS...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Only 15M licenses in reality
by WereCatf on Wed 28th Nov 2012 18:11 UTC in reply to "Only 15M licenses in reality"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

According to tech research firm StatCounter, about 1 percent of the world's 1.5 billion or so personal computers - making a total of around 15 million - are actually running Windows 8.

Source: Reuters


The number given by Microsoft does include OEM-sales and the likes, and since those computers aren't actually in use yet they obviously do not show on StatCounter.

Reply Score: 3

gpsnoopy Member since:
2007-04-17

That's my whole point.

Edited 2012-11-28 18:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Also Stats counter is hardly reliable anyway.

Reply Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I hate to be "that guy", but what is your basis for this? I'm not being snarky, I really don't know anything about StatCounter so I don't know how reliable they are (your opinion aside). I did a little research and have so far only found neutral to positive articles about them.

Just curious if you can give some off hand examples of unreliability.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It is unreliable by the very way they are gathering the data. For example typically Internet Explorer usage peeks at weekends.

Reply Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Well that was a non-answer. Never mind, dude.

Reply Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

How?

It is counting user agent string on a number of sites ... nothing more it is hardly reliable.

Oh well.

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Just curious if you can give some off hand examples of unreliability.

Well, I would point out that Statcounter likely focuses on & reflects more the EN/international sites. You can certainly see some differences with ranking.pl, my local stats:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-PL-monthly-200807-201212
http://ranking.pl/en/rankings/operating-systems.html

The direction of the differences even kinda makes sense, WRT Statcounter & EN/international sites hypothesis - people from PL who visit them are expected to be somewhat more EN-capable, tech-savvy, or wealthy; hence more likely to use Win7 or OSX.

Much clearer differences for browsers in Belarus:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-BY-monthly-200807-201212
http://www.ranking.by/en/rankings/web-browsers-groups.html
or Ukraine:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-UA-monthly-200807-201212
http://www.ranking.com.ua/en/rankings/web-browsers-groups.html


Of course, that doesn't really say which of those two are more reliable - but does point to some inherent overall unreliability in both of them.

Reply Score: 2

real numbers coming
by wigry on Wed 28th Nov 2012 18:54 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

Waiting for Netstat or any other internet statistics site to report their real Windows 8 market share. Also looking forward lets say 6-12 month on the market numbers to see how well W8 really does.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 28th Nov 2012 19:08 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

In my personal experience, which may or may not differ from yours, rarely anyone ever buys Windows. Most people buy a PC with Windows pre-installed.

A lot of people don't even know what version of Windows they are using even if it has been Windows XP for the last decade. I doubt these users will suddenly feel an urge to buy a new version of it.

It is interesting to me is the marketshare of XP, Vista and 7. Vista has the smallest, probably because it wasn't very good at the start (it did improve). If Windows 8 also turns out to be not very popular it may also end up with a small share as customers and companies will stick with Windows 7.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 19:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Vista is unfairly picked on. There were only 1 major bug (the file copying), the rest was unpowered machines being sold with it and bad drivers.

Also Windows 2000 and XP were bloody awful at release.

Windows Vista 64bit, used the same kernel as Windows Server 2008 R1 and was damn solid.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 28th Nov 2012 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes, but given a choice between XP, Vista and 7, would there by any reason to pick Vista? If the hardware can handle Vista then it should also run 7. XP will run fine on hardware where Vista and 7 don't run well on.

If 8 is added to the list, does it really improve on 7? I don't like the split between Metro and classic. It should be either, not both.

Even if 8 is fine, I'm not sure it currently is a must-have upgrade to 7.

Windows 7 is great and I would have liked Microsoft to have improved upon it and not started the Metro experiment.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Yes, but given a choice between XP, Vista and 7, would there by any reason to pick Vista? If the hardware can handle Vista then it should also run 7. XP will run fine on hardware where Vista and 7 don't run well on.


It depends, Windows XP runs like a dog on Dual Core machines. Vista, 7 and 8 run much better. 8 is miles faster than 7.

Speed wise Windows 8 > 7 > Vista.

The main problem is RAM, because of the aggressive pre-fetching, however it does scale itself back properly.

If 8 is added to the list, does it really improve on 7? I don't like the split between Metro and classic. It should be either, not both.


I personally don't find it a problem.

Even if 8 is fine, I'm not sure it currently is a must-have upgrade to 7.


I agree. I am using 8 and I just use the classic part for most things. I like the Metro Apps but I just don't really use them except for mail and skype.

Windows 7 is great and I would have liked Microsoft to have improved upon it and not started the Metro experiment.


I would have liked an Arm powered laptop with 8 that was running VS ... could have been an awesome machine.

Edited 2012-11-28 20:36 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 28th Nov 2012 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Why doesn't XP run well on multi core PCs and isn't there a fix?

We recently bought new PCs at work, Windows 7. Our old PCs, duo cores, ran XP and they were pretty awfull. But Linux flies on them and Windows 7 is also very decent.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I think the kernel isn't designed for it. Vista's is slightly better, but isn't brilliant.

There is an actual blog post on how they designed the Windows 7 kernel to work well with Multi-core processor ... but I can't find it now.

Vista also used 300 MBs just for the Window Manager ... which IMHO was a bit shitty.

EDIT: I believe it was the idle time being adjusted that made the difference.

Edited 2012-11-28 20:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 28th Nov 2012 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12
RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 20:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Interesting, however I think there is still a fundamental problem with the fact that the kernel just doesn't know how to use it properly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by WereCatf on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Why doesn't XP run well on multi core PCs and isn't there a fix?


The kernel simply wasn't designed for multi-core systems as at the time such systems were first and foremost high-end devices and the situation was not anticipated to change. If you think back to those times people and companies were entirely focused on megahertz - race -- including Intel and AMD -- and people just assumed we'd be running into hundreds of gigahertz on a single core.

There are various kinds of fixes to make XP run slightly better on dual-core systems, but even these do not really fully fix the situation and XP's kernel still suffers a serious penalty on three cores or more.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by tylerdurden on Wed 28th Nov 2012 23:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

XP was definitively designed with multiprocessing in mind. The NT kernel already supported natively SMP, MMP, and (cc)NUMA years before XP for that matter.

The scheduler and some subsystems have been tweaked through the years, so the newer kernels do appear to behave "faster" for most interactive tasks. Computers keep also getting faster as well.

There were some artificial limitations in the number of cores supported between the "home" (only 1 socket supported) and "pro" versions of XP. But I have used a 16 core workstation using XP, and it ran SMP workloads like a champ.

Edited 2012-11-28 23:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by MOS6510
by tylerdurden on Thu 29th Nov 2012 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Edit: those were threads not cores, d'oh.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by zlynx on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

There were several "fixes". For example, there's a dual-core optimizer program that AMD wrote and gave to gaming companies to fix XP for their Athlon64 X2 CPUs.

I'm not quite sure what it does, actually, but it seems to help.

There were quite a lot of video drivers that updated to optimize dual-core and hyperthread support for XP. I believe they forced various driver threads onto specific cores so the XP thread scheduler wouldn't get involved.

Some of those tweaks are less optimal now that CPUs have four/eight cores/threads and the Windows 7 and 8 thread schedulers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by WereCatf on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

8 is miles faster than 7.


People keep claiming this, but I just am not seeing such. I have Windows 8 on my laptop and while it is faster to boot the difference between Windows 7 and Windows 8 boot times is about 2 seconds, and while running there is absolutely no difference in speeds whatsoever.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by zlynx on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

I believe that there were some latency improvements in Win8. Things seem to happen more quickly after you click.

Some of that is related to the removal of the Aero effects.

All in all it gives an impression of more speed. I don't think things are actually faster. But making them seem faster is a worthy thing in its own right.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

All in all it gives an impression of more speed. I don't think things are actually faster. But making them seem faster is a worthy thing in its own right.


Believe it or not, this is a lot of being a Front End Web developer.

I made out website load twice as quick ... do you know how I did that? I moved the JavaScript from the <head> to the just before the closing <body> tag. That isn't as easy as you think when you have many inline scripts that expect certain script ... cough cough jquery .. to exist in the <head>.

Everything took exactly the same amount of time to load as before for the most part (I did compress, combine and minify scripts, I got from 33 JS files to 13 ... still more optimisation to come ... but I didn't think it made a huge difference overall).

But it seemed faster because the page was displayed almost instantly. Next is ajax loading large images, and spriting the website CSS background images.

Perceived performance is almost as good as real performance in a lot of cases.

However I don't agree it is just the Aero effects, I am seeing less memory being used in Task manager generally ... but my finding are obviously anecdotal.

Edited 2012-11-28 21:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by WorknMan on Wed 28th Nov 2012 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

8 is miles faster than 7.

People keep claiming this, but I just am not seeing such. I have Windows 8 on my laptop and while it is faster to boot the difference between Windows 7 and Windows 8 boot times is about 2 seconds, and while running there is absolutely no difference in speeds whatsoever.


Same here, although it's definitely not any slower ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by Morgan on Thu 29th Nov 2012 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

There were only 1 major bug (the file copying)


Perhaps in your experience, but in mine and thousands more across support forums over the first three years of its release, it had serious issues with WiFi connectivity. Regardless of the chipset, driver, manufacturer or interface, wireless connections with Vista were notoriously unreliable and difficult to diagnose.

It wasn't until the second service pack that these issues were cleared up; apparently there was a nasty bug in the networking stack (I've heard more than one network expert refer to it as "a broken mess"). I ran into this bug again just yesterday, reinstalling Vista Business on a client's laptop. It simply refused to connect via wireless to three different networks, until I connected a hard line and finished all of the Windows updates. Two reboots later, it finally connected successfully to my router and my phone's WiFi tethering.

Vista can be a decent OS once it's set up properly, but with support dropping soon after XP goes to the pasture, it makes no sense to continue using it today. I'd rather someone use Windows 8 than Vista at this point.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by stripe4 on Thu 29th Nov 2012 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
stripe4 Member since:
2007-09-21
Now With Free Phone?
by HappyGod on Thu 29th Nov 2012 00:38 UTC
HappyGod
Member since:
2005-10-19

I often wondered why MS didn't bundle their non-performing Phones with Windows.

Sure, it will be an inevitable lawsuit, but they always resolve way too late anyway.

They should bundle the phone as a loss-leader, at a drastically reduced price. Like $50 or something.

This would give them massive market share in the phone space, and would provide them with potential repeat buyers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Now With Free Phone?
by Nelson on Thu 29th Nov 2012 03:27 UTC in reply to "Now With Free Phone?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Windows Phone sales have quadrupled Year over Year. Nokia has taken something like almost 3 million pre orders for the Lumia 920. They've come a long way.

Windows 8 is having a definite halo effect. In fact, since Windows 8 launched my Windows Phone app has exploded in downloads, there is definitely some real movement happening there.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Now With Free Phone?
by tylerdurden on Thu 29th Nov 2012 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Now With Free Phone?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I don't know if it's pure coincidence, but some of your posts include talking points straight from Microsoft's own PR releases.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Now With Free Phone?
by Nelson on Fri 30th Nov 2012 05:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Now With Free Phone?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

What press releases? Arstechnica reported on Windows Phone sales quadrupling Year over Year, my app download counts is a statistic of my own, and the Windows 8 halo effect comes from the fact that the timing is coincidentally following the launch of Windows 8.

It therefore isn't a stretch to conclude that Windows 8 produced a lift in uptake for Windows Phone.

I'm not sure I understand the point of your comment.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Now With Free Phone?
by tylerdurden on Sat 1st Dec 2012 03:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Now With Free Phone?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Well, you picked the part of the article where Ars technica was simply relaying a PR release by Microsoft. But there was more to that piece; the author commented how Microsoft didn't release actual numbers, making the "quadrupling" claim kind of useless/misleading since we lack the actual number that it's being quadrupled according to Redmond.

Furthermore, since we have no idea what your app is, or how many downloads it generated. I can't take that "halo" claim at face value. E.g. Why would a desktop operating system lead to an increase of sales of a random mobile app?

I assume you're either employed by Microsoft or Nokia, or you have a vested interest in the windows phone platform doing well if your app depends on its adoption rates. So I'll have to take what you say with a grain of salt, which I guess that was my point.

Anyhow. The new lumias seem to have had a relatively strong initial sales launch according to some analysts. Hopefully that brings some good news for Nokia, that stock needs all the help it can get after a 4 year nose dive.

Edited 2012-12-01 03:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

v The source of Microsoft's monopoly.
by skpg on Thu 29th Nov 2012 06:32 UTC
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Copyright is bloody important ... stop talking rubbish.

Software Patents which are bullshit are the problem.

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Copyright is bloody important ... stop talking rubbish.

Software Patents which are bullshit are the problem.


Hmm. Personally, I believe copyrights are also a problem. You know how nowadays things can have copyright on them for hundreds of years, long after the original creator has deceased, and how fair use - rights are being stomped on ever harder and so on? Copyright should really be reworked to much, much shorter copyright terms and to distinguish between completed works and ongoing works like e.g. Linux is an ongoing work, whereas Elvis Presley's albums are completed works.

That said, copyright is not the issue on this particular topic and on that I agree with you.

Reply Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

While there are some shitty things about Copyright, it is pretty important to protect the author of the work from being ripped off.

Idiotic responses like the OP saying it needs to be abolished is just nonsense.

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Copyright should really be reworked to much, much shorter copyright terms and to distinguish between completed works and ongoing works

Perhaps giving copyright protection should also require placing the source code to works in some kind of escrow.

We have the "source code" to books - because, luckily, the "source code" to a book is the text, the consumed work itself.

Not so with films, music, or closed-source software - even when it's out of copyright, they can't be mashed up as easily as a book. But if, after copyright lapses, we'd get pre-mixed tracks of audiovisual media, or the code to formerly closed source software...

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

For a completely different view on copyright, you should also have a look at other industries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

Anyway it depends on how copyrights are used.

How copyright is used for the Linux kernel or for books is usually fine.

How proprietary software vendors only sell you a license to use their software with lots and lots of exception and a right to retract that permission, I don't like so much.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Lennie,

"How proprietary software vendors only sell you a license to use their software with lots and lots of exception and a right to retract that permission, I don't like so much."

Actually that's an excellent point. My knee jerk reaction was that the OP was ignorant of how copyright laws are important for the software industry. However in a very real sense corporations including microsoft have overstepped the boundaries of what copyrights are for. A prime example is not being able to take a windows license from one computer and install it on a new computer when the first is damaged or decommissioned. Copyright law is not supposed to enable Microsoft to force customers to buy the same thing over and over again, but that's essentially microsoft's core windows business model. A significant number of windows copies are being "oversold" this way: a new computer has the same OS as the old computer which is broken down, and yet the owner is required to buy windows again. Other commercial software vendors don't get that benefit. Take, for example halflife 3, photoshop, winzip, etc, your expectation is that you can continue to use them on brand new hardware when the old hardware dies. The software only needs to be replaced if you want to upgrade it. It's very reasonable for consumers to reuse the software license for an OS as well. Bundled software should not be an exceptional case for copy rights.


I would support an amendment to copyright law to explicitly give consumers the right to continue using old software licenses on new machines.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Also I'd like to see copyright law be reduced again, instead of extended.

We are now at 75-years after the dead of the author, instead of the original plan, which was: 8 years.

Copyright, like patents, is meant to improve the rate of innovation.

Instead of we have Disney lobbying* the US government to keep extending the copyright laws so they can keep the copyright on Mickey Mouse.

* I wouldn't be surprised if they also "fund things"

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Her argument is flawed.

She even alludes to it, there is a shoe that has a patented heel technology or making things too complicated to copy.

Edited 2012-11-30 02:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I don't agree on that, I think her point is:

copyright can stall innovation.

copyright was meant to give a someone for a limited time (8 years originally) the right to copy. Not the current 75-years after the death (!) of the author.

This gives no incentice for innovation.

Actually patents also are meant to improve the rate of innovation, but we know many, many examples especially in IT where this is not working and has the opposite affect.

So in that sense copyright and patents really are kind of in the same boot.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I disagree.

I believe software patents can stifle innovation.

Copyright cannot, not in the Software Engineering industry anyway.

Also if it wasn't for Copyright many open source projects would be swallowed by large software companies and you would never see it again.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I'm just saying 75 years after the death of the author is to much, even ridiculous :-)

That is no incentive for Disney to come up with a new Mickey Mouse. Thus no innovation.

Edited 2012-11-30 17:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I think 75 years is silly for copyright yes.

However I don't know what Mickey Mouse has got to do with the law protecting my hard-work when creating a software program.

Creating Software is non-trivial, while I work for a gambling company ... if I worked for myself, I would like to think there are protections in my own country that stop a rival just de-compiling/stealing and redistributing something if I am selling licenses.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And GPL is a copyright license...

MS largely brought us inexpensive & powerful machines (suitable for nice *nix workstation), thankfully killed the mess with 80s micros. If anything, the scales of Wintel PCs brought tremendous rates of technological growth.

Microsoft is a monopoly because the market naturally gravitated to such state via economies of scale, and because other options were worse ( http://www.osnews.com/thread?522221 ).
Oh, and also because people like and pirate Windows on a big scale ( http://www.osnews.com/permalink?543832 )

Reply Score: 2

Pathetic
by Sodapop on Thu 29th Nov 2012 11:35 UTC
Sodapop
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's kinda pathetic if you see 300+ Million in US alone, 7+ Billion in the world. They sold what? 40 Mil...lol.

Now think of it this way: Most of what those 7 Billion do have is either a home phone, cell phone or a combo. So it's not like people don't need things, they do. Just not Windows, if given the choice.

Also, even at just $40 it's struggling. A lot of people have said they wouldn't accept it if it was free!. And also there is the case of people who really know nothing about computers, and Intel and Microsoft is all they believe exist, that's sad.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Pathetic
by lucas_maximus on Thu 29th Nov 2012 12:25 UTC in reply to "Pathetic"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

When has 40 million sales in the first month been considered "struggling"?

I wish I could sell 40 million of something just for £25 each.

Edited 2012-11-29 12:26 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Pathetic
by tylerdurden on Thu 29th Nov 2012 22:00 UTC in reply to "Pathetic"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


Now think of it this way: Most of what those 7 Billion do have is either a home phone, cell phone or a combo. So it's not like people don't need things, they do. Just not Windows, if given the choice.


You win the bobby price for the post with the largest lack of self awareness of the day:

Basically, you need to get out more. Over half of earth's 7 billion human population lives in abject poverty (making less than $2 a day), with over 2 billion people not having access to proper clean water or food supplies, and 1 billion suffering from hunger (which is one of the worst forms of violence). So for over 3 billion people a cell phone (smart of dumb) is not only an unreachable luxury, but the least of their worries.

Of the 3 billion people who do not live in abject poverty, a significant fraction live in developing countries, where only a relatively small percentage make enough money to be able to afford a non-vital commodity like a really fancy smart phone.

Your life as a middle class Western kid is far from being a representative of the human experience on this planet. You know what the average human is? A 29 yr old right handed Chinese male, whose life experience, interests, and concerns are likely to be completely foreign to you.

As per the 40 million Windows licenses, that number is larger than the population of many industrialized nations of earth (E.g. Canada, Poland, Australia, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Denmark...). So it is a rather significant volume.

Edited 2012-11-29 22:03 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Pathetic
by zima on Sat 1st Dec 2012 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Pathetic"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

So for over 3 billion people a cell phone (smart of dumb) is not only an unreachable luxury, but the least of their worries.
Of the 3 billion people who do not live in abject poverty, a significant fraction live in developing countries, where only a relatively small percentage make enough money to be able to afford a non-vital commodity like a really fancy smart phone.

Though there is something like 6 billion mobile subscribers by now; evidently the impoverished also see value in having a mobile phone (of course, most likely one which can be had for 15€ or so)

Yes, quite a few of those 6 billion subscribers is because of people having more than one mobile. But apparently there's also an opposite dynamic at work: in some places, it is customary for a family or even village to share one mobile phone.
Those two possibly largely balance each other out...

Edited 2012-12-01 09:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Pathetic
by zima on Tue 4th Dec 2012 13:06 UTC in reply to "Pathetic"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

That's already more than desktop Linux... and will likely quickly surpass all versions of OSX combined (just like the "failure" Vista did)

Most of what those 7 Billion do have is either a home phone, cell phone or a combo. So it's not like people don't need things, they do. Just not Windows, if given the choice.

Windows is on most of the ~1.3 billion PCs out there, utilised by most of the ~2 billion PC users; also pirated ( http://www.osnews.com/permalink?543832 ), people want it. BTW, "home phones" are available to minority of human population; PCs (whatever the OS) similarly available only to a minority.

Edited 2012-12-04 13:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2