faetal on 26/6/2015 at 15:10
How am I meant to predict where you got your information? Seriously, your response here is way out of whack.
Also, "some local officials have already accused the Redmond-based giant of bundling keyloggers in its operating system to help the United States government spy on Chinese PCs" - doesn't prove anything.
Tony_Tarantula on 26/6/2015 at 16:35
You don't need to get the information from the same sources I do. In fact the link I posted wasn't where I originally heard that, as I originally heard it from a presenter at a conference at Princeton that was not recorded for the public.
China dumping Windows 8 and Germany issuing a warning against using are, fortunately, public knowledge elsewhere albeit without all the details. What's not easily available knowledge is that (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10049444/International-Space-Station-to-boldly-go-with-Linux-over-Windows.html) NASA also dumped Windows for the same reason.
Do your own looking around. The universal reason is vague "security concerns". You're not going to get much more specific than that for the same reason that e-commerce sites and banks are never more specific than saying they've identified "security vulnerabilities" when they send you one of those alerts that your account may have been compromised.
Renzatic on 26/6/2015 at 16:59
Reread your article. It mentions nothing about "vague security issues". NASA dumped XP for their own Linux spin because they wanted an entirely inhouse solution. One they had complete control over, and could patch, update, and fix without having to wait on MS.
I've heard all about those MS is spying on you for the NSA rumors. Shame no one can offer up any concrete, indisputable proof. Only "...the public doesn't know about it, man. You gotta be in the scene to know the truth".
faetal on 26/6/2015 at 17:18
It's ok to have concerns. It's different to confidently state the mechanism of those concerns without knowing for sure.
EvaUnit02 on 26/6/2015 at 20:14
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
Or...you know....people that actually have real enterprise security needs. Like NASA, which removed windows 8 from its systems...or China, which banned the use of Windows 8 and beyond from any government computer systems.
Windows 7 is going to last a longer time because business that do have security concerns (like governments, investment banks, medical companies, etc) simply can not use Windows 8 due to numerous backdoors that were deliberately built into the OS for the benefit of US intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
1. We're talking situations particular to home users and PC gamers. Enterprise situations are entirely irrelevant.
2. Nobody cares about your Pornhub viewing habits or your newest post in your regular MRA sub-reddit where you accused Jonathan McIntosh of being a blue pill-swallowing beta who is whiteknighting in his quest for liberal arts pussy.
Nedan on 26/6/2015 at 23:18
LOL! Sorry, that last crack about "Pornhub viewing" floored me. That was a good shot EvaUnit02.
Quote Posted by faetal
(Just to be a little less glib - there's no reason to think that every other O/S revision will follow the previous pattern, unless we're supposing that it's done on purpose)
The problem here is that is exactly the case with every major O/S microsoft has released. Windows 95 was innovative... but plagued with serious bugs & performance issues. So microsoft released Windows 98 as a patched version of 95 (windows 98se is still my favorite O/S of all time). Then came Windows Millennium, has any O/S performed as badly as this one? Good gracious, the bugs & the slow performance were unbearable. With Windows Vista... I really appreciated what microsoft was trying to do but, let's be honest here, it was an absolute mess. Hell, they released Windows 7 as a patched up version of it (which seems to also be a pattern with them). And with Windows 8, it is a total mind-f*ck on trying to figure out why they thought the Metro UI would be great for a desktop O/S.
Microsoft likes to innovate with every other O/S release. And with every innovation, comes with a mountain of bugs & performance issues that ultimately make it not worth the upgrade. And the following releases usually backtrack on features the previous O/S had that were either stupid or just too bug-ridden to be viable. Most of the time, the following releases tend to be patched up versions of the bug-riddened innovations they have released.
So I'm not wrong in my assessment of microsoft. Who knows, maybe they are doing it on purpose.
Pyrian on 26/6/2015 at 23:30
Wouldn't that make Windows 10 the good one? Unless Windows 9 was the good one and they decided to skip it, lol.
voodoo47 on 26/6/2015 at 23:45
mmm, not really. millennium was actually quite ok provided you had hw it liked. vista was not bad either, but at the time of release, hw drivers were immature and a common pc was desperately below vista's real requirements (ms learned the hard way here that they need to watch the minsysreqs very carefully, as an average joe won't be arsed into buying a new pc just because of a new os). and btw, xp sp0 was utter, utter crap (sp1 made it usable). you can't really generalize here - to avoid trouble, just don't be an early adopter. give the os a year*, see how it fares, then decide. there is no way we'll see any real w10 benefit (DX12 and umm.. was there anything more? LESS metro?) any time sooner.
*mark the last day w10 will a be a free upgrade to all win7/8 owners in your calendar.
froghawk on 27/6/2015 at 01:37
Huh... my memories of ME, XP and Vista definitely line up with Nedan, and I'm pretty sure I was an early adopter on XP. But it was a long time ago, so maybe I'm misremembering.
EvaUnit02 on 27/6/2015 at 01:45
Quote Posted by Nedan
And since DirectX 12 is exclusive to Windows 10, I don't see much of an incentive to upgrade to 8 at all.
Absolutely, Win 10 is literally a month away. Zero point bothering with Win 8 this late.
Quote:
With Windows Vista... I really appreciated what microsoft was trying to do but, let's be honest here, it was an absolute mess. Hell, they released Windows 7 as a patched up version of it (which seems to also be a pattern with them). And with Windows 8, it is a total mind-f*ck on trying to figure out why they thought the Metro UI would be great for a desktop O/S.
* Vista was perfectly fine, even better after SP1. I used it well into Win 7's life cycle and only upgraded because someone gave me a key (that being said the "quality of life" changes made to the UI in 7 made me absolutely never want to downgrade. Other than that it was more of the same). Vista's poor launch is the fault of 3rd parties:- hardware manufacturers being slow to spin-up Vista drivers; OEMs loading Vista onto shitboxes that were blew minimum requirements.
* Remove Metro UI from the equation, Win 8 is iteratively better version of Win 7.
Quote:
Microsoft likes to innovate with every other O/S release. And with every innovation, comes with a mountain of bugs & performance issues that ultimately make it not worth the upgrade.
Can't say that I experienced any major "bugs or performance issues" in Vista or Win 8... hell even ME for that matter. I hated ME because the "removal" of real-mode DOS broke compatibility with a lot of favourite DOS games like Warcraft 2. I could never get the hack to restore real-mode DOS to work properly.
The whole "ZOMG, Vista runs games worse than XP!" was greatly exaggerated. In most cases the differences was like 2-4fps in a small handful of games if you ran DX9 mode across the board. DX10 though? I think the problem there was in most cases is that they were taking games built from the ground-up for DX9 and then a DX10 renderer was tacked on. Games built exclusively for DX10 were a different matter (there weren't many at all. Just Cause 2 and Shattered Horizon are the only ones that come to mind ATM.) were performed fine. It didn't help that the first gen DX10 cards were kind of shit.
Anyway Win 10 is supposed to be the "last Windows ever". They might be switching to an annual major service update model like MacOS?
