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.
Thread beginning with comment 543458
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: But....
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:34 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: But....
by WereCatf on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:43 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: But....
by Lennie on Thu 29th Nov 2012 15:23 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 Parent Score: 2