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 543461
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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[7]: But....
by lucas_maximus on Wed 28th Nov 2012 21:49 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: But....
by Dave_K on Thu 29th Nov 2012 02:42 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 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