# Windows 10 will pack full-screen start menu, tablet mode



## longknife (Jan 23, 2015)

Seems to look a bit better than Win8 start menu.


Read more: Windows 10 Will Have a Full-Screen Start Menu Digital Trends


Windows 10 isn’t just a step back to the desktop, it’s a step up @ Windows 10 isn t just a step back to the desktop it s a step up Fox News


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 23, 2015)

From the early preview:





Consumer Preview to be released soon. Probably only as update (via Windows Insider Program) for the latest Technical Preview:
Windows 10 Technical Preview US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 23, 2015)

Looks really old school. I have a Gnome3 menu and Cinnamon bar, a dashboard sort of thing but mostly use Cairo Dock to access programs, which is what I was using on Macs. I have 4 desktops with two monitors so I can have 8 monitors filled with stuff.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 23, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Looks really old school. I have a Gnome3 menu and Cinnamon bar, a dashboard sort of thing but mostly use Cairo Dock to access programs, which is what I was using on Macs. I have 4 desktops with two monitors so I can have 8 monitors filled with stuff.


Old school and ugly but has multidesktop support now.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 29, 2015)

*Windows 10: "We obviously F*cked up, we fixed it, we are so awesome!....that will be $100 please."
*


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> *Windows 10: "We obviously F*cked up, we fixed it, we are so awesome!....that will be $100 please."*


Haven't they been saying that since Windows 3?


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 29, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> *Windows 10: "We obviously F*cked up, we fixed it, we are so awesome!....that will be $100 please."*


Its free forever if you take it in the first year.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 29, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > *Windows 10: "We obviously F*cked up, we fixed it, we are so awesome!....that will be $100 please."*
> ...



Not really..some yes.
Honestly up until Windows 95, the Windows 3.1, WFW etc. were honest upgrades. That was when networking was taking off...more drivers for new hardware coming out etc.
Windows 95, was an amazing piece of crap that should have not been released. Even worse than MacOs, which bombed hourly. 
Windows 98 was "yeah we f*cked up, here is what we really meant to do with Windows 95, that will be $200 please.
Windows ME - BOMB - HORRIBLE - it was the first system that had System restore, but if you did it - it most often destroyed everything. Unbelievable and unacceptable that this total piece of crap EVER made it off the shelf.
WIndows XP - "Yeah we f*cked up with ME...that will be $200 please. The truly funny thing is, on Microsoft's "History of Windows" - Windows ME is conspicuously absent from the list!
Weirdly at this time one of Microsoft's best systems, and IMO one of the best O.S.'s of all time - Windows 2000..was put aside to make way for XP. Windows 2000 was extremely stable, fast an1d more secure than XP. As well as Windows Server 2000 was a solid server OS. 
WIndows Vista - "Hey guys, XP is a few years old - here is a new OS just so we can have some money coming in..oh and we improved the (oops) big giant security holes in XP, but we won't mention that right now"...$150 please.
Windows 7 - "yeah..uh...folks that bought Vista..heh...sorry...but hey here is a better system that fixes all of the crap we hadn't done yet with Vista...heh..oh - $130 please.
Windows 8 - "Hey buy this - do it now!! If you don't like it - F*CK YOU!!!"
Windows 8.1 - "ok...so maybe "f*ck you wasn't the right things to say...heh..."
Windows 10 - "Yeah...well so we messed up so bad with WIndows 8, we just went ahead and skipped 9. Just so we can distance ourselves from having f*cked up so bad!!" = $100 please.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2015)

I got two programs I need XP for, on a quad boot machine. That's the end of the line for me.

I'm using Mint 17.1 on this machine. Tried it yet? I REALLY like this one, it pretty much does it all and I have it customized just the way I want.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 29, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


I don´t agree. Its mere nonsense that suggests you are using Linux 0.01.
For example, Vista is indeed more secure than XP but not due to a not-existing lack of security updates for XP but due to new features (e.g. Noob UAC, improved Firewall). XP and other Windows systems, however, are more secure than Linux. XP had 13 years of attacks and the resulting security updates. I guess, that an Ubuntu that faces the same threats like a Windows OS in the web, would be an easy target. Linux´ security argument bases on Window´s overwhelming market share. As Linux has a very low market share, few malware is written for Linux.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


LOL. Lots of server folks will be amused by that one!


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 29, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> I got two programs I need XP for, on a quad boot machine. That's the end of the line for me.
> 
> I'm using Mint 17.1 on this machine. Tried it yet? I REALLY like this one, it pretty much does it all and I have it customized just the way I want.



Yep...I have 17 on this laptop. Fast, solid, and of course one of the beauties of Linux - ultra customizable to make it look/feel like you want it. Why Microsoft doesn't get that just shows the level of arrogance they employ.
In the past few months I have turned Linux on the new company owner. I have saved him at least $15,000 in just the past year alone. Keeping in mind we are only about a $4 mil company. About a 3rd of the users are now Linux, and two servers on Linux.
 Awesome. It just works, faaaar more secure and easier to use than Windows.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 29, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


They would agree.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> They would agree.


Nope.

Linux vs. Windows security - The Community s Center for Security
*Source:* AME Info - * Posted by* Pax Dickinson   
​ Microsoft and Linux both provide support for authentication, access control, audit trail/logging, Controlled Access Protection Profile, and cryptography. However, Linux is superior due to Linux Security Modules, SELinux, and winbind. The user of a Linux system can decide to add additional security mechanisms to a Linux distribution without having to patch the kernel.
Various access control mechanisms have been built on top of LSM; for example, building compartments that keep applications separate from each other and from the base operating system, which limits the impact of a security problem with an application. Linux base security is further enhanced by solutions, such as Tripwire, that enable System Integrity Check functionality to periodically verify the integrity of key system files and warn those responsible for system security whether a file's contents or properties have been changed.

A limitation of Windows base security is MSCAPI, which trusts multiple keys for code signing. Microsoft's model focuses on providing one build of a product that can enable weak or strong encryption simultaneously. Although modules are not all signed by one key, since MSCAPI trusts a large number of root certifying authorities, and trusts multiple keys for code signing, it only takes one key to be compromised to make the entire system vulnerable to attack.

 Read this full article at AME Info


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> In the past few months I have turned Linux on the new company owner. I have saved him at least $15,000 in just the past year alone. Keeping in mind we are only about a $4 mil company. About a 3rd of the users are now Linux, and two servers on Linux.
> Awesome. It just works, faaaar more secure and easier to use than Windows.


Sounds like it's time for a raise.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 29, 2015)

longknife said:


> Seems to look a bit better than Win8 start menu.
> 
> 
> Read more: Windows 10 Will Have a Full-Screen Start Menu Digital Trends
> ...




Metro was NOT going anywhere.

The thing is, once motion computing becomes mainstream (after Apple clones it and  "invents" it in a couple of years...) the Metro interface will be great, and Apple will invent it to use on their devices.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jan 29, 2015)

Hackers worldwide always stand up and cheer when Microsoft introduces a new product.  Makes their work easier for months!


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 29, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> I don´t agree. Its mere nonsense that suggests you are using Linux 0.01.
> For example, Vista is indeed more secure than XP but not due to a not-existing lack of security updates for XP but due to new features (e.g. Noob UAC, improved Firewall). XP and other Windows systems, however, are more secure than Linux. XP had 13 years of attacks and the resulting security updates. I guess, that an Ubuntu that faces the same threats like a Windows OS in the web, would be an easy target. Linux´ security argument bases on Window´s overwhelming market share. As Linux has a very low market share, few malware is written for Linux.



On the Desktop side, it is hard to say. If Linux had a larger desktop marketshare however, I am confident that the HUGE Linux base would address issues faster and superior to Microsoft. Afterall, I get security updates on Mint almost everyday.
On the server side, uh...no. Not even close. There is a clear reason why businesses/governments use Linux servers over Windows.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 29, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> I don´t agree. Its mere nonsense that suggests you are using Linux 0.01.
> For example, Vista is indeed more secure than XP but not due to a not-existing lack of security updates for XP but due to new features (e.g. Noob UAC, improved Firewall). XP and other Windows systems, however, are more secure than Linux. XP had 13 years of attacks and the resulting security updates. I guess, that an Ubuntu that faces the same threats like a Windows OS in the web, would be an easy target. Linux´ security argument bases on Window´s overwhelming market share. As Linux has a very low market share, few malware is written for Linux.



Windows from NT 2.0  through Windows XP used the OS/2 core - which featured a "portable kernel."  Really this was a cool feature, that made NT the most flexible OS in history. NT has run every kind of device you can imagine, big NC mills, ticket machines, hydraulic presses, refrigeration  It also made the system extremely vulnerable - the ability to replace the kernel of the OS at will means that some truly heinous things could be done. 

The Longhorn core replaced OS/2 starting with Vista. Longhorn locks the zero ring and the kernel.  It is every bit as secure as Linux, but also just as inflexible as Linux. Hardware abstraction died with XP.

Windows continues to dominate the market and will increase that dominance in the next few years. With motion computing supported at the core level of the new Intel I7's - the metro interface will gain traction on the desktop. In fact, I expect Apple to invent Metro in the next few years and replace the IOS and Mac interface.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 29, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > They would agree.
> ...


What is done in the forefield has nothing to do with security holes.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 29, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t agree. Its mere nonsense that suggests you are using Linux 0.01.
> ...



Say what??
Metro is dead.
Sure some other form is highly likely to replace the traditional desktop, but Metro is (snicker) not it. It was one of MS's biggest screwups to date.
And Linux not being portable?? - what planet you living on? Ever heard of Android?
And one of Linux's strongest features is it's scalability. To this day - you can have a fully functioning, and quite powerful OS that can fit on a single floppy disk!!
 And there are numerous industrial equipment running on Linux. Not sure where you are coming from saying differently.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 29, 2015)

And by the way, Ubuntu's Unity Desktop, which was not welcomed either, has won over many Linux users today. It is infinitely better than Metro, and mark my words, I bet your house whatever form Microsoft goes to will look a lot like it.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 29, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t agree. Its mere nonsense that suggests you are using Linux 0.01.
> ...


I don´t think so. At first, not every Distro has a large team behind that is able to fix security issues in time or at all . That means that most Distros are insecure in mass utilization. Second, "the lack of attacks" on Linux systems will leave a lot of security holes undiscovered. That is making the system insecure. Luckily, for the same reason, it doesn´t need this security.

However, Ubuntu developers accuse Mint of excluding important updates:
Ubuntu Developers Say Linux Mint is Insecure. Are They Right 

There is another thing. The City of Munich examines the re-introduction of Windows as Server downtimes are too long and employees "suffer".
Verwaltungs-PCs Stadt M nchen will von Linux zur ck zu Microsoft - DIE WELT
LiMux Neuer Wirbel um Linux in M nchen heise open


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 29, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Say what??
> Metro is dead.



So dead that it sits on the start menu of Windows 10..



> Sure some other form is highly likely to replace the traditional desktop, but Metro is (snicker) not it. It was one of MS's biggest screwups to date.



Attempting to force a touch screen paradigm on a world that uses a mouse and keyboard is indeed stupid.  Balmer, with his head firmly up his ass, was convinced that the whole world would switch to a tablet overnight. Balmer was and is a moron.

However, the Mouse driven UI is end of life, it will not last the decade. 

The first time I saw Kinect, I understood that the interface of the future is motion. Touch is really kind of stupid, no one wants to touch a desk to monitor, I don't even like touching a tablet. Motion is the future - period. Either Microsoft can leverage their IP or they can wait until Apple "invents" it in a few years.

It actually doesn't matter, Intel has forced the issue.

Intel -based Motion Computing Tablets Simplify Retail Deployment



> And Linux not being portable?? - what planet you living on? Ever heard of Android?



ROFL

You are confused. Kernel portability refers to the ability to replace the kernel in the OS with a custom one tailored to a particular need.



> And one of Linux's strongest features is it's scalability. To this day - you can have a fully functioning, and quite powerful OS that can fit on a single floppy disk!!
> And there are numerous industrial equipment running on Linux. Not sure where you are coming from saying differently.



Linux lacks the flexibility to act as a physical control system for hardware devices. It cannot interface with PIM's and HALs from physical machines.

Longhorn can't either. This is a loss that ending NT will make difficult to recover from.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 29, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t agree. Its mere nonsense that suggests you are using Linux 0.01.
> ...


Supporting OS/2 applications does not mean to have a OS/2 kernel.
However, Windows is able to run Unix applications natively:
Windows Services for UNIX - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Since XP, all Windows versions base on NT but that does not mean that they have the same kernel. The only Desktop OS that has a real NT Kernel is XP x64 that even shares the same updates with 2003 x64.

Microsoft is doing a lot about AI, investing 25 % of all its research resources in that sector. Interesting, what all will come out.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 29, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> And by the way, Ubuntu's Unity Desktop, which was not welcomed either, has won over many Linux users today. It is infinitely better than Metro, and mark my words, I bet your house whatever form Microsoft goes to will look a lot like it.




I was one of the few who liked Unity from the start - but it does not compete with Metro.

Unity is a mouse interface, pitting it against Aero, it is not suitable for touch/motion computing.

I view Aero as vastly superior to Unity - or ANY other UI - at least as far as Mouse and keyboard goes. Aero is the perfect UI.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 29, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> [
> Supporting OS/2 applications does not mean to have a OS/2 kernel.
> However, Windows is able to run Unix applications natively:
> Windows Services for UNIX - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> ...



Even under Windows XP, snoop the System32 folder and you find OS2Kernel,Sys and a dozen other such files.

NT was born of OS2, and remained so until XP.

Server 2003 was indeed NT kernel based - and now end of life. I like 2008R2, but hate 2012. Metro on the desktop is a mistake - Metro on a server is simply insane.





Ugly, clunky, non-functional.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 29, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


You need to read the article again.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 29, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Os/2 support was abandoned long before XP was born.
I agree that Metro is ugly and as useful as operating a PC via touch.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 29, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> [
> Os/2 support was abandoned long before XP was born.
> I agree that Metro is ugly and as useful as operating a PC via touch.



What do you mean by "OS/2 support?"

Everything typed at a command line in in XP was basic OS/2. 

Since there were few actual OS/2 apps, I have no idea what support would even look like. The NTFS file system and the command line syntax were born of OS/2.

The name changed to NT purely because of the split between Microsoft and IBM.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 29, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


I mean that in earlier times Windows could run OS/2 applications.
However, The whole Win 9x (including Me) series bases on MS-DOS. With XP Microsoft switched to NT based systems also on desktop systems. And in the command line, DOS commands are given.

"OS/2 and Windows NT have an interesting and checkered common history. Until late 1990, the operating system eventually released as Windows NT was known as NT OS/2. Despite its name, NT had very little in common with OS/2 as it existed at the time (that is, OS/2 1.x) in terms of design or source code. The core NT design team led by Dave Cutler, mostly consisting of ex-Digital programmers, had very little experience with OS/2 or even PCs. At the same time, the plan was to provide compatibility with existing OS/2 applications and for OS/2 to be the dominant ‘personality’ of NT.

The NT kernel’s (or more correctly the NT Executive’s) design was radically different from the design of OS/2 1.x. While OS/2 1.x was a 16-bit OS designed exclusively for the segmented architecture of the Intel 286/386 CPUs, NT was a portable 32-bit OS with paged virtual memory, deliberately ported to the 386 PC platform relatively late in its development cycle. While OS/2 could not run on anything but a 286/386 without a complete rewrite, NT could not run on a 286 ever."
NT and OS 2 OS 2 Museum


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 29, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Say what??
> ...



Your all over the place.
Industrial Linux control systems are everywhere...everywhere. 
Scalability of the OS and the ability to customize the kernel natively is what Linux is. 
Kinnect? Pheh...wearable controls is the future. Far less expensive and accurate as well as less prone to error. Using a camera as a UI is laughable. It will go nowhere.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 29, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> I mean that in earlier times Windows could run OS/2 applications.



To the best of my knowledge, there were no OS/2 applications per se.

The split between IBM and Microsoft came before there was any actual development. By the time anything was released, the name had been changed to NT 2.0.



> However, The whole Win 9x (including Me) series bases on MS-DOS. With XP Microsoft switched to NT based systems also on desktop systems. And in the command line, DOS commands are given.



Correct.

Windows 1.0 - 3.6 were nothing more than an operating shell loading on top of DOS.

Windows 95-ME were DOS based based.

Microsoft recognized the weakness of the 16 bit DOS world, and entered a joint venture with IBM to create a second generation operating system - OS/2.



> "OS/2 and Windows NT have an interesting and checkered common history. Until late 1990, the operating system eventually released as Windows NT was known as NT OS/2. Despite its name, NT had very little in common with OS/2 as it existed at the time (that is, OS/2 1.x) in terms of design or source code. The core NT design team led by Dave Cutler, mostly consisting of ex-Digital programmers, had very little experience with OS/2 or even PCs. At the same time, the plan was to provide compatibility with existing OS/2 applications and for OS/2 to be the dominant ‘personality’ of NT.
> 
> The NT kernel’s (or more correctly the NT Executive’s) design was radically different from the design of OS/2 1.x. While OS/2 1.x was a 16-bit OS designed exclusively for the segmented architecture of the Intel 286/386 CPUs, NT was a portable 32-bit OS with paged virtual memory, deliberately ported to the 386 PC platform relatively late in its development cycle. While OS/2 could not run on anything but a 286/386 without a complete rewrite, NT could not run on a 286 ever."
> NT and OS 2 OS 2 Museum



IBM and Microsoft split, the proper name for IBM OS/2 is "Warp" NT and Warp were competing products, insofar that IBM could compete at all. But both were based on the original OS/2 core.

As with the early windows, Warp and NT were mostly UI's - NT offered what was called "presentation manager" and Warp was it's own GUI.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 29, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> I don´t think so. At first, not every Distro has a large team behind that is able to fix security issues in time or at all . That means that most Distros are insecure in mass utilization. Second, "the lack of attacks" on Linux systems will leave a lot of security holes undiscovered. That is making the system insecure. Luckily, for the same reason, it doesn´t need this security.
> 
> However, Ubuntu developers accuse Mint of excluding important updates:
> Ubuntu Developers Say Linux Mint is Insecure. Are They Right
> ...



  I can't argue that the "scatteredness" of Linux is a problem. Always has been. And yes, if the 100's of small *nix OS's were at the brunt of hackers and script kiddies they would melt with ease. 
 Having said that, it is changing. Ubuntu and Mint are slowly making others obsolete outside of the server world. I hope it continues.
  A truly commercial, branded Linux is needed. RedHat is a good example of a successful commercial Linux brand. 
  Windows has it's strengths. Like I said earlier, I consider Windows 2000 one of the best OS's made. As well as server 2000, infinitely better than NT Server. I hated NT Server. 
  Embedded application servers, I can't complain. We have embedded systems that have been running 24 hours a day for years. 
My issue with M$ is an old one. You have heard me say it before, no sense rehashing it again.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 29, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t think so. At first, not every Distro has a large team behind that is able to fix security issues in time or at all . That means that most Distros are insecure in mass utilization. Second, "the lack of attacks" on Linux systems will leave a lot of security holes undiscovered. That is making the system insecure. Luckily, for the same reason, it doesn´t need this security.
> ...


I don´t understand that issue. What´s the problem when Microsoft releases a new OS? You don´t have to buy it. And if you have a copy of Win 7/8, you´ll get Windows 10 for free. I don´t like that Microsoft excludes older versions from some new features and programs, but it is not a harsh policy. So you can´t install Office 2013 on Vista and older or install DirectX 9.0c on Windows 98, DirectX 10 on XP, DirectX 12 on Windows 8.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 29, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> I don´t understand that issue. What´s the problem when Microsoft releases a new OS? You don´t have to buy it. And if you have a copy of Win 7/8, you´ll get Windows 10 for free. I don´t like that Microsoft excludes older versions from some new features and programs, but it is not a harsh policy. So you can´t install Office 2013 on Vista and older or install DirectX 9.0c on Windows 98, DirectX 10 on XP, DirectX 12 on Windows 8.



  It's not that.
They have a long history of releasing OS's too soon.
I don't know how old you are, so maybe you wasn't around when Win95 came out.
The first time I saw it, there was no denying that this was the future. None. And the better networking features was holy cow better than WFW.
But...it was a nightmare. It costs businesses countless hours of lost productivity, lost data and not to mention loss of hair for everyone who used it. It constantly crashed, and applications hung multiple times a day. This went on for over a year before WIndows 95 2.1, which finally at least made Windows 95 decently stable.
WIndows 98 was also an unholy system when first released. 
You have to understand, out of the box things didn't work. Promises unkept, like USB and Plug n Play.
  And then there was M.E., early XP and now Windows 8.
  One more thing, who was the CEO, the man in charge of Microsoft for 14 years again? Oh yes...Steve Balmer. Holy hell, just how many things was this guy wrong about...and not just wrong...but Chernobyl wrong ?
"The iPhone will never win marketshare"
Making bitter enemies of Google, instead of working with them.

It wasn't just Steve Jobs that propelled Apple into the stratosphere and outperforming Microsoft. It was also the bone-headed arrogance and failures of Balmer. How this man stayed at the helm for 14 years is unbelievable.


----------



## Bleipriester (Jan 30, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t understand that issue. What´s the problem when Microsoft releases a new OS? You don´t have to buy it. And if you have a copy of Win 7/8, you´ll get Windows 10 for free. I don´t like that Microsoft excludes older versions from some new features and programs, but it is not a harsh policy. So you can´t install Office 2013 on Vista and older or install DirectX 9.0c on Windows 98, DirectX 10 on XP, DirectX 12 on Windows 8.
> ...


Maybe, Windows 95a was not the most stable OS that´s nothing, other new products don´t face.


----------



## longknife (Jan 30, 2015)

Well, it's interesting to watch you nerds go back and forth with one another.

Now that I have Classic Shell installed, I'm more than content with Win8.1. And, when 10 comes out, I'll certainly get my free update - just hope Classic will work on it.


----------



## hipeter924 (Feb 1, 2015)

longknife said:


> Seems to look a bit better than Win8 start menu.
> 
> 
> Read more: Windows 10 Will Have a Full-Screen Start Menu Digital Trends
> ...


When it comes out I am still going to remove all those apps from the start menu.

They seem totally out of place like that, and only really fit the current start screen on Windows 8-8.1.


----------



## Bleipriester (Feb 25, 2015)

longknife said:


> Well, it's interesting to watch you nerds go back and forth with one another.
> 
> Now that I have Classic Shell installed, I'm more than content with Win8.1. And, when 10 comes out, I'll certainly get my free update - just hope Classic will work on it.


There will be something better that that.
The Windows 10 Start menu returns with Start10


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 13, 2015)

Apparently M$ is also taking another play from the Linux playbook and making Win10 "lighter" so it can work on older machines.  As opposed to the Win8 (Let's try our version of Unity with Windows) fiasco this looks like a positive step in the right direction.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Mar 14, 2015)

Ringel05 said:


> Apparently M$ is also taking another play from the Linux playbook and making Win10 "lighter" so it can work on older machines.  As opposed to the Win8 (Let's try our version of Unity with Windows) fiasco this looks like a positive step in the right direction.



  It would be about time wouldn't it?
The daily laptop I use at home is an old Dell Inspiron 15 mfg. late 2011.
It came with Win 7. Even with 4 GB of RAM, after a few years it is sluggish.
Boot up is agonizingly long, and returning from sleep mode is at least a solid minute before drive activity stops.
 But I rarely boot into the Win side. 
I run Mint 17. Boot up is at least 75% faster, and returning from sleep mode is literally about the time it takes me to enter my password. Seconds.
 Launching browsers, using office and viewing PDF's all at the same time is very fast.
Not so on Windows. Not at all.
  So it would loooong overdue for Windows to be lighter.


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 14, 2015)

After a few years my Win 7 machines slow down also, or they would if I didn't have a program like CCleaner.  Yes, 7 is slow to boot up and slow to shut down but (for me) it has one advantage Linux doesn't have, gaming.  
Win 8 (8.1) is fast, very fast but I hate most of the changes M$ made including the requirement for creating a M$ email account simply to log onto one's own computer.  They should be legally forced to make that optional.


----------



## Bleipriester (Mar 14, 2015)

Ringel05 said:


> After a few years my Win 7 machines slow down also, or they would if I didn't have a program like CCleaner.  Yes, 7 is slow to boot up and slow to shut down but (for me) it has one advantage Linux doesn't have, gaming.
> Win 8 (8.1) is fast, very fast but I hate most of the changes M$ made including the requirement for creating a M$ email account simply to log onto one's own computer.  They should be legally forced to make that optional.


That is optional.


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 14, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > After a few years my Win 7 machines slow down also, or they would if I didn't have a program like CCleaner.  Yes, 7 is slow to boot up and slow to shut down but (for me) it has one advantage Linux doesn't have, gaming.
> ...


Coulda fooled me.  How does one make it optional?


----------



## Bleipriester (Mar 15, 2015)

Ringel05 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


You just need to create a "local account" which is nothing but a normal user account or cut off the Internet connection during installation. I guess, it is also possible to switch to a local account  afterwards.


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 15, 2015)

Bleipriester said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


Okay, guess I missed that somehow, I never saw it or it wasn't properly explained.  It wouldn't surprise me if the vast majority of people turning on their Win 8 machine for the first time think they have to create a email account to use their computer........


----------



## Bleipriester (Mar 15, 2015)

Ringel05 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...


Could be possible that Win10 requires an account due to its activation system...


----------



## Ringel05 (Mar 15, 2015)

Double checked and yes there is a way to revert to a local account and it appears I was correct in that M$ doesn't make it obvious a connected account is not needed to log on.  Matter of fact it's pretty obvious they want people to think one is needed.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Mar 15, 2015)

Ringel05 said:


> Double checked and yes there is a way to revert to a local account and it appears I was correct in that M$ doesn't make it obvious a connected account is not needed to log on.  Matter of fact it's pretty obvious they want people to think one is needed.



Just another example of the "Borg-like" mentality of M$.
I agree with you in that they should be legally forced to either remove the option altogether, or make an obvious statement that you do not have to create one to continue. WITHOUT some bloated statement that makes it sound like your world will end if you don't.


----------



## ogibillm (Mar 15, 2015)

Im looking forward to running windows 10 on my raspberry pies


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 15, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> I got two programs I need XP for, on a quad boot machine. That's the end of the line for me.
> 
> I'm using Mint 17.1 on this machine. Tried it yet? I REALLY like this one, it pretty much does it all and I have it customized just the way I want.


I put Mint on an old HP box....I installed as a duel boot and kept the Winders 7 on it.....but its pretty doggy...can't tell if its the Mint or just an old box about ready to give up the ghost....Seems okay visually, but I haven't yet played with it enough to determine if I want to use it.  I may go full install after wiping the HD, that might give it some ummph..


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 15, 2015)

Ringel05 said:


> After a few years my Win 7 machines slow down also, or they would if I didn't have a program like CCleaner.  Yes, 7 is slow to boot up and slow to shut down but (for me) it has one advantage Linux doesn't have, gaming.
> Win 8 (8.1) is fast, very fast but I hate most of the changes M$ made including the requirement for creating a M$ email account simply to log onto one's own computer.  They should be legally forced to make that optional.


I've not had any problem with My windows 8, and it is fast...However, some games are boggy on this box....and the irony of all ironies is that the worst running game is actually a MS game.......Flight Simulator X gold....doesn't do well on windows 8.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Mar 15, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> I put Mint on an old HP box....I installed as a duel boot and kept the Winders 7 on it.....but its pretty doggy...can't tell if its the Mint or just an old box about ready to give up the ghost....Seems okay visually, but I haven't yet played with it enough to determine if I want to use it.  I may go full install after wiping the HD, that might give it some ummph..



  You understand that it is physically impossible for LinuxMint to run slower _on an older machine_ than Win 7?
It takes less RAM and less processing power than Windows. 
That would be like saying you use more electricity with a 100 watt incandescent bulb than with a 23 watt fluorescent.


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 15, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t think so. At first, not every Distro has a large team behind that is able to fix security issues in time or at all . That means that most Distros are insecure in mass utilization. Second, "the lack of attacks" on Linux systems will leave a lot of security holes undiscovered. That is making the system insecure. Luckily, for the same reason, it doesn´t need this security.
> ...


I liked RedHat....Good O/S....but when they started charging for it, and My net server needs became significantly less, then I really didn't have a use for them.  

Does the MInt or Rebecca flavors handle apache and MySQL decently?


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 15, 2015)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > I put Mint on an old HP box....I installed as a duel boot and kept the Winders 7 on it.....but its pretty doggy...can't tell if its the Mint or just an old box about ready to give up the ghost....Seems okay visually, but I haven't yet played with it enough to determine if I want to use it.  I may go full install after wiping the HD, that might give it some ummph..
> ...


All I can say is that the O/S is doggy....MS doggy slow on that box...It may be that I just need to do away with the duel boot and just bite the bullet and install Mint as a stand alone.....I'm just worried that I will lose the drivers for My panasonic CD burners....its the only reason I even have that box anymore....


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 15, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Bleipriester said:
> ...


I don't know about Apache or MySQL but you might want to take a gander at Fedora, the freebee version of RedHat.

As far as Mint goes, that can depend of the desktop you chose and the video card. Yhere are numerous flavors, you can run it with Gnome3, Cinnamon, XFCE, and a host of others. The easiest on your system will be the lightest of course, I believe XFCE but it's plain Jane. Mate would be a good choice, the computer I have that on is 10 years old w/ 2 gigs of ram and Mate is good looking and very functional with a small footprint.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 15, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


That won't change anything. I have 4 O/Ses on my Windows machine. When you boot to one the others are just partitions.


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 15, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


Not the best video card.  It came with the system and when I was looking to upgrade it, there were none that would fit it...I can't rememver if its a PCI slot or PCI3X16 or even an AGP slot.  LOL....All I know is when I looked it up, no one carried it and I think I was forced to decide on tigerdirect to purchase one.  But the system IS old and not worth the money for a video card upgrade.  I do remember some talk about Fedora about 8 years ago....The conversation was positive.  I wasn't aware it was RedHats free version.  What about FreeBSD?


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 15, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


Yeah, that's what I thought too.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 15, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> Not the best video card.  It came with the system and when I was looking to upgrade it, there were none that would fit it...I can't rememver if its a PCI slot or PCI3X16 or even an AGP slot.  LOL....All I know is when I looked it up, no one carried it and I think I was forced to decide on tigerdirect to purchase one.  But the system IS old and not worth the money for a video card upgrade.  I do remember some talk about Fedora about 8 years ago....The conversation was positive.  I wasn't aware it was RedHats free version.  What about FreeBSD?


I've tried a bunch of distros but stick with the more popular ones, debian and Debian offshoots. The Mint team regularly updates, the Debian team, not so much. 

You don't need a powerhouse video card, you just need to make you use the best driver. There's a driver manager and you can check there.


----------



## longknife (Mar 15, 2015)

You guys are so far over my head with your tech talk that I'm not even trying to decipher it!


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 15, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Not the best video card.  It came with the system and when I was looking to upgrade it, there were none that would fit it...I can't rememver if its a PCI slot or PCI3X16 or even an AGP slot.  LOL....All I know is when I looked it up, no one carried it and I think I was forced to decide on tigerdirect to purchase one.  But the system IS old and not worth the money for a video card upgrade.  I do remember some talk about Fedora about 8 years ago....The conversation was positive.  I wasn't aware it was RedHats free version.  What about FreeBSD?
> ...


Okay...well, the video I get isn't too bad.  I"m more concerned with making it into a web server anyway so I can simulate a web envoirment on My home network.  I didn't even use a GUI on the linux when I was using it as a web server so the video is just a plus anyway.


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 15, 2015)

longknife said:


> You guys are so far over my head with your tech talk that I'm not even trying to decipher it!


Box......A computer that has software.......does that help?


LOL


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Mar 18, 2015)

longknife said:


> Seems to look a bit better than Win8 start menu.
> 
> 
> Read more: Windows 10 Will Have a Full-Screen Start Menu Digital Trends
> ...



Or you could just say "Metro."


LOL

There was never a chance MS would dump Metro, it is the foundation of gesture computing, which is the up and coming thing.


----------

