Windows 8 - Deeper Impressions

[Tripredacus]

Parts of the video do look like an improvement over Windows 8.1, but still not feeling that Start Menu. I don't know why they felt the need to put live tiles on a part of the GUI that is not open for more than a couple of seconds.

[NoelC]

New ugly Windows 9 screenies:

 

http://www.techbroil.com/2014/09/destiny-vs-yard-work.html?showComment=1410522196150#c3792145317375972527

 

Clearly the Marketing toads are still in charge, and they're not learning that people DON'T LIKE ugly, square UI elements, and lacking in visual style.

 

It's as though someone painted the Windows Ferrari with a paint brush and a bucket of Behr paint, and instead of taking the thing down for a full strip and expensive paint job by a professional, they keep trying to touch it up with that brush and more cans of paint.

 

Why are these Marketing people who clearly haven't got a clue about setting style not being hunted down and done away with?  They had a layoff, there was already a good excuse.

 

-Noel

[Formfiller]

 

http://winfuture.de/news,83577.html

 

IF the background image (that looks a lot like one of those prank images to simulate a broken LCD screen) is going to be the default one and an example of the "new design" I confirm how humanity is doomed.

 

 

 

 

To be fair, this video on the site is promising:

 

http://winfuture.de/videos/Software/Windows-9-Startmenue-geht-auch-ganz-ohne-Live-Tiles-12912.html

 

So you can remove the live tiles from the start menu! It doesn't look that butt-ugly there.

 

Hm:

 

http://winfuture.de/videos/Software/Windows-9-Das-neue-Startmenue-in-Aktion-12906.html

 

The start screen is still there, just hidden on default.

[Aero7x64]

Yes I have seen already before in that video that you can unpin live titles but what I want to know is there possibility to use right column (locations) like in Windows 7 as replacement to live titles and like I already said before, I also want to know about possibility to use full Windows Aero theme instead of flat ugly theme in desktop.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Aero7x64

[NoelC]

One has to wonder whether they're going to relax the restriction that to use Metro/Modern apps you MUST have UAC enabled.  Methinks, since it doesn't appear they're doing very much right with the GUI design, they'll likely keep that restriction too.

 

The future of computing - down the Windows path anyway - does seem doomed, Jorge.

 

-Noel

[JorgeA]

Yes I have seen already before in that video that you can unpin live titles but what I want to know is there possibility to use right column (locations) like in Windows 7 as replacement to live titles and like I already said before, I also want to know about possibility to use full Windows Aero theme instead of flat ugly theme in desktop.

 

If you start at this image and then click on the next five, it looks like it may be possible to use the right column the way you (we) want.

 

So far, though, there's no hint that Aero Glass or rounder corners will be an option.

 

The shutdown button is now at the top of the Start Menu, next to the username.

 

The coolest new feature IMHO is the Linux-like ability to have multiple desktops. Never been sure just how useful it is, but it sure is cool. B)

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

One has to wonder whether they're going to relax the restriction that to use Metro/Modern apps you MUST have UAC enabled.  Methinks, since it doesn't appear they're doing very much right with the GUI design, they'll likely keep that restriction too.

 

The future of computing - down the Windows path anyway - does seem doomed, Jorge.

 

-Noel

 

Yeah, I'm not sure what one thing (Metro apps) has to do with the other (UAC). Why should it be any different from using regular Desktop applications, most of which do not require dealing with UAC. (Right?)

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

Forget Windows 9 and Windows Phone: Will it all be called just plain 'Windows'?

 

...Could Microsoft be getting ready to dump all its various numbering and naming schemes and just say that all of its products are running Windows?

 

One thing that left me scratching my head --

 

More recently in July, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said Windows would converge and be "one operating system that covers all screen sizes," perhaps suggesting again that the naming convention for Windows may be consolidating, and not, as some took it to mean, that Microsoft would produce one OS to run everywhere regardless of screen size or processor architecture.

 

How does stating that there will be one OS that covers all screen sizes, translate into meaning merely that there will be a variety of OS versions with the same name?

 

Oh, and imagine the complications and utter confusion that this would create when trying to explain how to perform specific tasks for readers and listeners:

 

"OK, do A and then B, then..."

 

"Wait, wait, I don't have an A. Where do you see that?"

 

"Go to the top center and see where it says --"

 

"Hold on -- there's nothing there. What the heck are you talking about?"

 

"Huh?"

 

"I'm saying, there's nothing to select there. What are YOU looking at??"

 

"All right, which Windows are you on -- are you on your phone, your PC, or what?? If it's on the phone, you have to do A and B and C, but if you mean on the PC, then you have to do W and M and X instead."

 

"Ohhh. OK. Now I see. Why do they have to call all of these things by the exact same name, Windows? Why don't they just call it Windows Phone so that you can tell what's what???"

 

Unless it is in fact precisely the same experience on all devices (and ever since the introduction of Windows 8 we've known that that won't fly), Microsoft is opening itself up for new rounds of public ridicule and general derision.

 

--JorgeA

Edited September 12, 2014 by JorgeA

[NoelC]

Specifically, one can disable the UAC facility today in Windows 8 via a registry change.  But doing so causes you to lose the ability to run Metro/Modern apps entirely, owing to an arbitrary decision by Microsoft.  Microsoft DOES NOT allow a Metro/Modern application to run on a system where UAC has been disabled.  There is no good technical reason for this restriction; they've just decided it.  Perhaps it suits their "walled garden" goal for Apps.

 

Note that dragging the UAC slider to the bottom in Windows 8 does NOT actually disable it (as it did in Windows 7), but rather puts you in a "just go ahead and escalate automatically without asking" mode.  This is not at all the same as just running without UAC enabled!

 

It's important to note that UAC actively lowers your privileges to the level of a lowly user regardless of whether you're running in a privileged account.  It's the reason you have to run things "as administrator" sometimes to get what you want done.

 

This dyed-in-the-wool geek prefers to be privileged all the time.  That preference is strong enough that I eschew Metro/Modern toys entirely to get it, and I will continue to do so.  I understand what I'm doing well enough and take enough care that I don't accidentally break things (with great power comes great responsibility and all that), and I don't have to deal with the system making requests to escalate, denied operations, and this "duality of personality" UAC invokes all the time.  In short, I don't need the OS protected from me.  I need the OS to do exactly what I tell it, when I tell it, without complaint.

 

I believe that a fair number of people (e.g., Win 7 users who have opted not to adopt Windows 8) feel the way I do, and many of the ones who haven't grokked the issue just feel that Windows 8.1 operates in a generally flaky manner where you never quite know whether you're going to be able to do what you want.

 

Even in the "escalate automatically without asking" mode, there are ongoing niggling problems and unexpected behavior.  I've tried it.  The system really does act flaky when run like that.

 

-Noel

[JorgeA]

Thanks for explaining the differences in UAC between Windows 7 and 8, Noel. I wasn't aware of any of this.

 

Hmmm... if one isn't inclined to use Metro apps anyway, then it sounds like the inability to run them aftern turning off UAC wouldn't be a handicap at all.

 

--JorgeA

 

[JorgeA]

Erdogan passes law tightening Turkey's grip on Internet

 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has approved a bill giving telecoms authorities more power to monitor online users and block websites, the latest move tightening state control over the Internet.

 

[...]

 

...(T)he new law, approved late Thursday, strengthens these powers and allows the telecoms authority TIB to block websites "to protect national security, public order and to prevent crime" without a court order.

Service providers would then have to block the website or remove the content within four hours.

It also allows the TIB to store online communications and traffic data for up to two years, including information on which websites were visited by Internet users and for how long.

Until now, only hosting providers were allowed to store the information. The TIB was able to obtain the data only as part of a criminal investigation or upon a court order.

 

I am old enough to recall when the Internet was regarded as an unstoppable force for liberating people from the iron fist of the State. Back then I even shared in that enthusiasm. With news like the above, and China and Russia and Iran's extensive censorship, and the NSA's shenanigans, clearly the State has learned well how to extend its long arm into cyberspace and smash down that fist on unsubmissive netizens.

 

--JorgeA

 

[MagicAndre1981]

 

Yeah, I'm not sure what one thing (Metro apps) has to do with the other (UAC). Why should it be any different from using regular Desktop applications, most of which do not require dealing with UAC. (Right?)

 

 

 

 

Specifically, one can disable the UAC facility today in Windows 8 via a registry change.  But doing so causes you to lose the ability to run Metro/Modern apps entirely, owing to an arbitrary decision by Microsoft.  Microsoft DOES NOT allow a Metro/Modern application to run on a system where UAC has been disabled.  There is no good technical reason for this restriction; they've just decided it. 

 

the reason is to make apps secure by running them in a sandbox (low IL) and this requires UAC. UAC is great and everyone who disables UAC doesn't understand it.

 

[NoelC]

No, I understand it just fine.  I just don't need nor want it, Andre.  All it does - ALL IT DOES - for me is to get in the way of things I need to do.  You might say that I should just learn how to live with it, to take it in stride...  And I in return will say that I have done that, THEN chosen to toss it out.  It just turns out to be an ongoing waste of time.  I'm not going to change my opinion on this particular item any time soon, but that's okay; I'm not arguing that it ought to be removed, just that the option to turn it off needs to remain in place. 

 

I appreciate your strong opinions; I see you fixing other people's problems.  But know this:  I do understand how operating systems work.  I've been around a long time, and I've written a few of them myself.  I'd be willing to go along with a statement such as "Most everyone who disables UAC doesn't understand it".

 

I'm not arguing that UAC is a bad thing for the general public, who don't realize that not every piece of software is made with their best interests at heart.  But even for them, is UAC actually making things more secure?  Um, no.  Look around - It's not working.  Is there a lack of malware infections?  UAC is no more than a false sense of security.  That's the worst kind of security.  Extra baggage without actual extra protection.

 

I suspect at least some of Microsoft's own developers feel the same way I do, which is why the capability to turn it off is still there.  But there's a new crew who's disconnected from reality doing the Metro/Modern stuff who I imagine are more rebellious than smart.

 

I believe the fact that Microsoft has been using their own OS to develop with is one of the reasons it has remained possible to configure it into a serious computing platform, though that's getting harder and harder.  Nothing says they will continue to follow this policy, however.  There is no reason to assume they will be compelled to release the configurations on which they develop to the public.  At some point their management may feel that it gives them a competitive advantage to produce their consumer OSs with an internal computing platform that they alone will have.

 

So far, I have not needed anything programmed for the Metro/Modern realm.  But that's not going to keep.  Sooner or later Microsoft will start to eliminate desktop capabilities and only provide them via Metro/Modern Apps, after which it will be necessary for me to leave UAC enabled.  I'll find a way to live with it, once the door is closed.  But until then, UAC can go pound sand.

 

Thing is, Microsoft's continued survival is not a given.  They pound the nails into their own coffin one by one by removing the options that people want.  Note the number of folks not willing to accept the reduced functionality of Windows 8.  A large part of the business world is staying with Windows 7, and if you think it's just because there's no Start menu you're naïve indeed.

 

-Noel

[NoelC]

the reason is to make apps secure by running them in a sandbox (low IL) and this requires UAC. UAC is great and everyone who disables UAC doesn't understand it.

 

By the way, the assumption that everyone wants or needs to run "low integrity level" software should be questioned.

 

Don't embrace mediocrity, avoid it.

 

-Noel

[jaclaz]

 

the reason is to make apps secure by running them in a sandbox (low IL) and this requires UAC. UAC is great and everyone who disables UAC doesn't understand it.

Which is fine.

 

I claim I don't understand UAC (and I am not particularly interested in understanding it ).

 

The only thing I know about it, is that it gets in the way every three things I do on a computer (usually someone else's computer that went beserk for *whatever* reasons, through "plain" use with UAC fully enabled and that I am attempting to fix).

 

No doubts that UAC may be seen from a technical viewpoint as the third best thing in life after ice cream and sliced bread, still it seemingly does not provide the protection against OS corruption that it promises in common practice.

 

And yes, I already know the counter reply "well, if the OS had not UAC enabled it would have been corrupted earlier", and it is exactly the point on which my practical (limited) experience casts some doubts.

 

Given that I have the same - more or less totally inept at computers - friends, I haven't seen in last ten years any decrease in desperate requests" for "Help, my PC doesn't work" and certainly I could not observe any decreasing corresponding to adoption of UAC enabled OS's.

 

Of course this means nothing really, only reporting my personal experience.

 

jaclaz