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

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

[
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.

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]

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

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

You need to read the article again.

 

[Bleipriester]

[
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.

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.

View attachment 36367

Ugly, clunky, non-functional.

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]

[
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]

[
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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[longknife]

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]

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

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]

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