backtop


Print 43 comment(s) - last by Argon18.. on Nov 30 at 5:29 PM

Windows 8 seems to be a touchy subject these days... have you taken the plunge?

Windows Users: Have you upgraded to Windows 8?
  • Yes, I bought a new PC/Tablet with Windows 8 pre-loaded (122 votes)
  •  
    2%
  • Yes, I upgraded my existing machine(s) to Windows 8 (3,396 votes)
  •  
    45%
  • I haven't upgraded to Windows 8 yet, but I plan on doing so in the future (646 votes)
  •  
    9%
  • I currently have no plans to upgrade to Windows 8 whatsoever; I'm sticking with XP/Vista/Windows 7 (2,713 votes)
  •  
    36%
  • I'm still undecided on Windows 8, and haven't made any decisions on upgrading (665 votes)
  •  
    9%

  • 7,542 total votes


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Not until major changes
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/14/2012 4:58:52 PM , Rating: 3
The shell is fine, just allow some customization that reflects the differences in environments of Desktops/Workstations and Tablets/Phones. One size can fit all, if it is flexible. Sadly Windows 8's current shell is not flexible. Ironically it's more Apple than ever before.

My main complaint about making completely different shells is the Linux fiasco, which is a royal pain in the ass. Download "Mint", oh but do you want Cinnamon, MATE, KDE, or Xfce flavor? Get serious Linux, the distro should come ONE WAY, not FOUR WAYS. I like Mint, really I do, but Linux will never be taken seriously as long as it continues to be the neverending exercise in anarchy that it is. Linux - Anarchy Inside.

Windows works mainstream because shit is STANDARD, but allows power users to customize most everything, provided they have the expertise or skill to do so. This keeps support costs and learning curves the same across the market.

Apple works mainstream because you get it only one way, like it or not. This ticks off corporations and power users, but the average joe isn't savy enough to notice or care. Proof of this is the wildly popular iOS devices.


RE: Not until major changes
By sheh on 11/14/2012 11:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
But unlike Linux Windows apps already expect certain things of the shell, and so do the users. New shells will have to be compatible, at least some of them for those who care.

It doesn't have to be chaos. For example, the browser market seems organized enough.

But even if it is to be some chaos, it's better than stagnation and complete enslavement to the random changes Microsoft decides to implement.


RE: Not until major changes
By drycrust3 on 11/15/2012 12:14:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My main complaint about making completely different shells is the Linux fiasco,

I guess this is the old "one person's rubbish is another person's opportunity" analogy. There are Linux distributions that, probably for lack of resources, come with just one desktop. A desktop is an interface, it's part of the veneer between you and the applications that you want to run on your computer. Why do you believe having a choice of desktops is a sign of a poor operating system? Some would consider the growing presence of malware targeting Windows (and the need for third party software as protection from it) as the glaring sign of a poor and poorly maintained operating system, but I'm sure to you it's the sign of a successful marketing strategy.
I can't see how people like ... no, ... love Windows so much that they are willing to put up with all the antivirus - malware nonsense (or did the world change after Windows XP?) and constant fiddling around just to keep Windows working. Isn't the point of a desktop to help you use your computer?


RE: Not until major changes
By maugrimtr on 11/15/2012 7:38:29 AM , Rating: 2
For Linux, the desktop environment can be anything you want. Most will standardise. Ubuntu standardised on its custom Unity shell. The other standards commonly used are Gnome and KDE. None of the three are particularly hard to pick up if coming from Windows.

People forget that since Linux is open sourced, it has a myriad of desktop options. There is literally no way to enforce a single desktop option short of refusing to distribute it (which is merely an inconvenience since someone will just stick up the needed packages for download).

If anything, Linux has fallen into a similar trap to Windows 8. Ubuntu's Unity was designed for tablets. They've had to spent time polishing, changing and tweaking it to make it tolerable for desktop users and, even then, it remains a divisive feature with people migrating to Mint (which has something closer to the neat and simple Gnome 2.0 experience).


RE: Not until major changes
By drycrust3 on 11/15/2012 9:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
I would put the range of desktop options down to the GPL2 licence, not that the software is open source, although being open source does help.
You are right, most distributions do use one of the mainstream desktops.
The question, though, is why Master Kenobi (and others) consider this a sign of a bad OS?


RE: Not until major changes
By bug77 on 11/16/2012 12:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
Think for a second that you're a large company and want your software to work on Linux. Ubuntu has Unity, OpenSuse has KDE, Fedora has Gnome and so on. Where do you start? What do you target?
I think that was his point. I wouldn't call that a fiasco, because I love KDE and others swear by Gnome, Xfce, etc. No other OS will give you this freedom. And yes, freedom has drawbacks, but it's always the better choice, imho.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki