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

[longknife]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

I don´t agree. Its merely 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.

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

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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]

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?

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.

I don´t agree. Its merely 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.

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

They would agree.

 

[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

 

[Iceweasel]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[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.

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]

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]

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.