Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Oct 2012 18:10 UTC
Permalink for comment 540632
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
You might want to get your eyes checked (since we're apparently exchanging health advice). The very text I quoted from you was your first issue, and your words were it didn't work, which was a direct result of using a pirated copy and you gave Microsoft a negative point in your assessment as a result.
My point being, if you're going to go to the trouble to do a serious evaluation of a software product, do it with the legitimate software and not a compromised version. Whether or not the pirated copy was the cause of any issues (and you already admitted it caused an issue before denying it later), you're polluting the test pool. Therefore, I can't take you the least bit seriously.
Edit: And for what it's worth, yes there are a multitude of issues with Windows 8, which is why I have said in the past (after reviewing the release previews) that I'm on the fence about it altogether. I agree with you: There are a lot of problems they must address. My issue here is solely with your "designed to fail" experiment.
Edited 2012-10-31 02:40 UTC