now they decided that your server will run a UI designed for touchscreen tablets
Are you aware you can run Server 2012 with a no UI option? Even still, you're neglecting the fact that the start screen is for launching applications and using metro applications. There is still a desktop and the server tools still run on the desktop.
because fuck you that's why and you don't have an option to get the old interface without third party software.
Why exactly is this a hassle? It's not exactly difficult to install these options, or costly. Some of them are even open source. Why does Microsoft have to offer their own solution, when there are perfectly good ones already available?
I couldn't believe how annoying it now is to just LOG OFF from the classic interface
just hit ctrl+alt+del. The same screen comes up as in Windows 7 with options for lock, switch user, sign out, task manager, and shutdown/restart.
assuming it will actually come up
Press win+c if you can't get the gesture over a remote connection.
and assuming you already know it's there because there's no visual cue to let you know "hey there's this hidden panel over here"
There's also no visual cue for right click context menus yet we seem to get along fine with them. Windows 8 tells you were to find the charms menu the first time you log in to your user account. What kind of visual cue would you prefer? Some kind of wave emanating from the corner of the screen constantly?
Trying to force a tablet UI on a general purpose machine like a laptop or desktop is just as bad as trying to use a desktop OS on a tablet.
Except there's an entire desktop with mouse and keyboard clicky goodness waiting for you. I use it 99% of the time I'm using Windows 8, and haven't realized any productivity hits people (mostly those who have never used the OS) keep complaining Windows 8 will bring. Quite the opposite actually largely in part thanks to second-screen improvements. Don't like the start screen? Install one of the start menu replacements listed in this article.
Throwing it all out and starting over is ridiculous.
They didn't throw out all of Windows 7, just the start menu. I use Windows 8, and spend about 99% of my time on the desktop. As Windows 8 is almost a superset of Windows 7, Windows 8 can be used in exactly the same way as you used Windows 7..... that's pretty much what this article is all about. If you use Windows 8 like I do, you don't notice the difference until you restart the computer, or open the task manager, or copy a file, or connect a second monitor.... where you see some of the other tangible improvements of Windows 8.
The start button is not hidden; it's just not visible. Microsoft tells you exactly where to find it the first time you log in. The charms bar is an integral component to the Windows 8 UI, and it's very easy to access. Not only that, there are at least 5 distinct keyboard and mouse shortcuts for accessing the start menu (windows key, ctrl+escape, win+C enter, click lower left corner, charms menu).
Are you aware you were comparing Apples with Pears? Seriously, if you want a Mac it's because you are going to use OSX
If that's the case, then there's no point in ever comparing any PC or Mac. But if someone is shopping for a new computer and comparing all their options, and is pretty OS agnostic, then the above is a perfectly valid comparison to make.
Besides they tend to include premium features before PC vendors
Premium features... like bluray drives (still not available on Macs), USB 3.0 (very late to Macs), or dual graphics cards?
Yes, on paper, but the Apple has a superior IPS display....if only I were provided with a top spec screen.
To be clear, only the retina Macbook Pro has an IPS display and a resolution that beats PCs. All other Macbook Pros have less than 1080 resolution, and the panels are not IPS. Remember, the Macbook Pro with Retina also has several downsides like no Ethernet port, no optical media, no upgradeable RAM, non-standard proprietary SSD, non-removable battery, and they cost a damn pretty penny (especially if you want a decent sized SSD. The aforementioned proprietary format means you can't just upgrade it aftermarket on the cheap).... this may be fine for someone looking for the highest resolution display possible and has no other concerns. But by no means are these limitations acceptable for others.
I'm all for the second amendment and personal liberty and property rights and all that wonderful stuff.... but I think the manufacturing and sale of arms is one of those things that really needs to be regulated. This can be done in such a way that has no impact on your right to bear and keep arms, but still prevents people from manufacturing weapons and selling them to gangs to inflame street wars.
We're not ignoring the Retina, we're just making comparisons that are as apples to apples as possible.
So PCs can't match the Retina display, and Macs can't match the myriad of other hardware options like a bluray drives, top of the line GPUs, swivel displays, touch screens, ruggedized hardware, dock connectors, wireless displays, or track pads that double as a secondary information display. Seriously, if you want to get into a battle of "we have hardware you don't have" you're going to lose. I mean, can you even configure a Macbook with integrated WWAN?
If this is how you comparison shop for computers, then of course the Mac looks "overpriced". But if your comparison includes comparing HP support plus separate Windows support to Apple support (hardware and OS) plus the cost and quality of included software, then the Apple computer will look like a bargain.
And this is how it always goes. Bring up the claim "Apple costs more than Windows" and you get people who say "No! It's a myth! Spec them out the same and you'll see the Mac does not cost much more or even less!" Then we diligently spec them out, trying to match every specification as closely as possible, and when the PC inevitably costs less in come the goal post movers, who either claim things like "fit and finish" for the mac (which is also a lie as I've had some damn fine PC laptops like the Envy 14 or various Thinkpads in terms of build quality and materials) or that the comparison is invalid because the PC does not run OSX.
I'm assuming you replied to the wrong post, because otherwise your reply makes no sense. Point of the post you replied to was to make the Macbook cost as little as possible, while the point of the other comparison I posted was to make the machines match as much as possible. Macbook Pro with Retina display, upgraded to 2.6 GHz costs $2300, and still has a worse graphics card compared to the Envy. It also only has a 256GB SSD and un-upgradeable RAM. I can price the Envy to have a similar harddrive and it will still be cheaper, or I can install it after market, save $100, and still have an extra 750GB harddrive to sell or use as a spare. I can even upgrade that along the way as my needs grow and tech improves; not so much with the Retina. Also, the point of the comparison is to match specs as close as possible. This would include adding an ethernet dongle and a superdrive, for $110 more.
For this comparison, I didn't increase the price of the macbook pro from the base model, while maintaining the Envy was better specced and cost less. Even for this comparison, the Envy 15 beat the macbook pro by $450, and had better specs in screen size, screen resolution, graphics, harddrive, memory, and warranty.
Macbook Pro 15
Display: 15.4" 1680x1050
Processor: 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory
Storage: 750GB 7200-rpm hard drive
Memory: 8GB 1600MHz
Height: 0.95 inch (2.41 cm)
Weight: 5.6 pounds
Warranty: 1 year Price: $2,349.00
Comes down to the Macbook Pro costing $770 more, with the Envy 15 having better specs in almost every category where I couldn't make them 1:1. The most notable deficiency of the Macbook Pro is the puzzlingly low resolution display for their "premium" label. And yes, before anyone says it the Envy 15 has amenities like aluminum housing, backlit keyboard, and slotload optical drive.
And this is still far less than the $150,000 maximum for the civil penalty in the US. Joel Tenenbaum owes the RIAA $675,000. He might prefer two years in jail compared to a lifetime of indentured servitude trying to pay them off.
That you can cheat like you described is a function of the assignment design, not the mode of education, and easily gameable assignment designs are usually a function of class size and instructor resources. I would imagine this physics course was a low level undergraduate course with over 30 students, more likely 100+. In all my physics courses past freshman year, assignments were created from scratch each week and involved a fair amount of creativity in the derivations and proofs. Projects also became more commonplace, where copying from another student is virtually impossible. These kinds of projects and teaching scenarios are at direct odds with the structure of these "MOOCs."
In short, I'd say while it is likely that you can get through maybe cheat your way through couple lower level undergraduate courses, it's very unlikely that you'll get outstanding grades in any of those courses at any university of reputable rigor, but even more unlikely that you'd make your way through an entire degree doing as such. For MOOCs, there's really no way to sidestep the gameable assignments if they hope to offer a comprehensive educational experience (from basics through advanced topics).
Re:Is it really not that obvious?
on
The Rage For MOOCs
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Free MOOCs take care of 1) and 2) simultaneously, so all things considered, is it really that shocking that they're becoming more popular and in-demand?
But they don't actually solve the goal of advancing your education (education in the credential sense at least). The problem with a class with 100,000 students is you have to grade 100,000 assignments, midterms, exams, etc. in an efficient manner. This completely eliminates all the most valuable assignment types like hands on projects, essays, papers, proofs, group projects, etc. and basically boils down tests and homework to multiple choice. And when your homeworks and tests are multiple choice and available to 100,000 people, you are bound to have some sort of cheating ring. How exactly do you, as an MOOC provider, certify that someone who has completed a course has done so on his own merits? This is a serious problem with the model that has not been solved.
And even without solving it, in the meantime we still don't know that these multiple-choice courses are actually teaching anybody anything. I didn't have any multiple choice tests or assignments after my freshman year in college, and I can't say I remember anything from any class in which I've done multiple choice work. If MOOCs can't figure out a better homework/test model than multiple choice, I'm not really sure MOOCs will ever match more traditional forms of education.
Without a requiring a large investment of cash, all but the most serious students students feel no remorse about walking away.
I'd say the lack of personal connections attributes to this as well. When I'm in a physical class, I appreciate the personal attention the instructor has given me, and feel a connection with my fellow students. I dropped a course only once, and when I did I actually felt like I was letting them down somehow. When you have 100,000 classmates compared to 10, dropping doesn't seem like such a big deal (especially when you don't have a voice during class time anyway).
Interesting that this pops up in my RSS feed just as I'm browsing MIT OCW for a new course to take. I've taken several already, and really enjoy augmenting my knowledge with the course materials. I've also taken most of the Stanford and Udacity courses, so I'm well aware of what they have to offer.
I'd say the value of these courses is personal growth. I do not see any possibility of using these online courses for any type of credentials, and I certainly wouldn't put my online course experience in front of my actual degree on any sort of resume or job application, but I would say "I have some experience dealing with X." In fact, I doubt I'd have the skills or base knowledge to understand most of the courses I've taken in advanced physics, mechanics, and computer science without my bachelor's degree.
No, the point is that Microsoft has been thinking about the metro UI for a very long time. To say that they pilfered elements from this specific video in 2009 and then rushed to implement them into Windows 8 with absolutely zero evidence is pretty underhanded. Where are all the commentors on the Apple v. Samsung stories right about now, who profess that touch-based user interface interactions that are obvious should not be patented and freely copied?
I mean, it's pretty easy to tell "first time accepted submitter oso2k" (by the way oso2k, what exactly are we supposed to infer at 4:30 in Microsoft's video, which is a black screen with a copyright notice? Great job doing your job Slashdot editors) doesn't have much experience with Windows 8, as the similarities he or she draws between the two GUIs are tenuous at best. The whole point of this "con10uum" interface is a 1D window manager which arranges open windows in a line. You essentially pan back and forth in this window list and you can resize and reorder windows using multi touch gestures. This is nothing like Windows 8, which essentially allows you to only swipe through windows in order and place at most two side by side.
The only real similarity between the two GUIs is the existence of a global menu (not novel) an application specific menu (not novel) and a gesture to activate them (not novel). 10/GUI suggest this gesture is tapping on a specialized region separate from the touch screen, while Windows 8 uses a swipe in gesture from the edge of a touch screen. These are very different operations and require specialized algorithms and technology for each case (gesture recognition, edge to edge touch detection etc).
Metro design elements date back to at least 2006 with the Zune and evolved in 2008 with the new Xbox 360 UI. The font Microsoft uses for Metro is Segoe and dates back to 2004. Seriously, I know Slashdot is anti MS, but this is just getting ridiculous... first a post about how only 25% of Windows 8 prefer the OS to other versions of Windows, when 74% of those polled say they never even used Windows 8, and now this?
I'd say make him a chief engineering officer or chief software architect or some other top R&D title. "Brilliant Jerks" tend not to be people persons (obviously) so they tend to shy away from client/investor/public facing roles like CEO, where they can do real damage. If this person insists on such a role, perhaps let him find out the hard way that if he wants a management role, he has to minimize his role in R&D doing the things he actually loves. I think he will make the decision on his own that he'd rather be head tinkerer than run the day to day of the company.
The poll is dumb, but not for the reasons you state. It amazes me that there are over 200 comments here and not a single one has noted that only 26% of survey takers responded that they've even used Windows 8. It would help for an actual link to the survey results in the summary (or maybe some actual statistics)
But this isn't even a survey of only Windows 8 users. If only those who responded that they've used Windows 8 marked it as their favorite, than 96% of Windows 8 users say it's their favorite Windows OS.
It's quite obvious that the respondents to this poll have not used Windows 8, when 17% respond they're concerned there is no sleep/shutdown/reboot option, when in fact they are all there. Or the fact that 26% are concerned about system requirements, when they are exactly the same as Windows 7 requirements. In most cases, Windows 8 performs better than Windows 7 on the same hardware. In fact, from the comments here, almost universally deriding the Metro interface, you'd think it would be a big concern... except only 18% of respondents reported it as a shortcoming.
So again, not quite sure what to make of this poll except a bunch of non-users clicked a bunch of random buttons.
Slashdot Mirror
now they decided that your server will run a UI designed for touchscreen tablets
Are you aware you can run Server 2012 with a no UI option? Even still, you're neglecting the fact that the start screen is for launching applications and using metro applications. There is still a desktop and the server tools still run on the desktop.
because fuck you that's why and you don't have an option to get the old interface without third party software.
Why exactly is this a hassle? It's not exactly difficult to install these options, or costly. Some of them are even open source. Why does Microsoft have to offer their own solution, when there are perfectly good ones already available?
I couldn't believe how annoying it now is to just LOG OFF from the classic interface
just hit ctrl+alt+del. The same screen comes up as in Windows 7 with options for lock, switch user, sign out, task manager, and shutdown/restart.
assuming it will actually come up
Press win+c if you can't get the gesture over a remote connection.
and assuming you already know it's there because there's no visual cue to let you know "hey there's this hidden panel over here"
There's also no visual cue for right click context menus yet we seem to get along fine with them. Windows 8 tells you were to find the charms menu the first time you log in to your user account. What kind of visual cue would you prefer? Some kind of wave emanating from the corner of the screen constantly?
Trying to force a tablet UI on a general purpose machine like a laptop or desktop is just as bad as trying to use a desktop OS on a tablet.
Except there's an entire desktop with mouse and keyboard clicky goodness waiting for you. I use it 99% of the time I'm using Windows 8, and haven't realized any productivity hits people (mostly those who have never used the OS) keep complaining Windows 8 will bring. Quite the opposite actually largely in part thanks to second-screen improvements. Don't like the start screen? Install one of the start menu replacements listed in this article.
If third parties give you the option of decent free start menu replacement, why do you care whether Microsoft produces a first party version?
Throwing it all out and starting over is ridiculous.
They didn't throw out all of Windows 7, just the start menu. I use Windows 8, and spend about 99% of my time on the desktop. As Windows 8 is almost a superset of Windows 7, Windows 8 can be used in exactly the same way as you used Windows 7..... that's pretty much what this article is all about. If you use Windows 8 like I do, you don't notice the difference until you restart the computer, or open the task manager, or copy a file, or connect a second monitor.... where you see some of the other tangible improvements of Windows 8.
The start button is not hidden; it's just not visible. Microsoft tells you exactly where to find it the first time you log in. The charms bar is an integral component to the Windows 8 UI, and it's very easy to access. Not only that, there are at least 5 distinct keyboard and mouse shortcuts for accessing the start menu (windows key, ctrl+escape, win+C enter, click lower left corner, charms menu).
Are you aware you were comparing Apples with Pears? Seriously, if you want a Mac it's because you are going to use OSX
If that's the case, then there's no point in ever comparing any PC or Mac. But if someone is shopping for a new computer and comparing all their options, and is pretty OS agnostic, then the above is a perfectly valid comparison to make.
Besides they tend to include premium features before PC vendors
Premium features... like bluray drives (still not available on Macs), USB 3.0 (very late to Macs), or dual graphics cards?
Yes, on paper, but the Apple has a superior IPS display....if only I were provided with a top spec screen.
To be clear, only the retina Macbook Pro has an IPS display and a resolution that beats PCs. All other Macbook Pros have less than 1080 resolution, and the panels are not IPS. Remember, the Macbook Pro with Retina also has several downsides like no Ethernet port, no optical media, no upgradeable RAM, non-standard proprietary SSD, non-removable battery, and they cost a damn pretty penny (especially if you want a decent sized SSD. The aforementioned proprietary format means you can't just upgrade it aftermarket on the cheap).... this may be fine for someone looking for the highest resolution display possible and has no other concerns. But by no means are these limitations acceptable for others.
I'm all for the second amendment and personal liberty and property rights and all that wonderful stuff.... but I think the manufacturing and sale of arms is one of those things that really needs to be regulated. This can be done in such a way that has no impact on your right to bear and keep arms, but still prevents people from manufacturing weapons and selling them to gangs to inflame street wars.
We're not ignoring the Retina, we're just making comparisons that are as apples to apples as possible.
So PCs can't match the Retina display, and Macs can't match the myriad of other hardware options like a bluray drives, top of the line GPUs, swivel displays, touch screens, ruggedized hardware, dock connectors, wireless displays, or track pads that double as a secondary information display. Seriously, if you want to get into a battle of "we have hardware you don't have" you're going to lose. I mean, can you even configure a Macbook with integrated WWAN?
If this is how you comparison shop for computers, then of course the Mac looks "overpriced". But if your comparison includes comparing HP support plus separate Windows support to Apple support (hardware and OS) plus the cost and quality of included software, then the Apple computer will look like a bargain.
And this is how it always goes. Bring up the claim "Apple costs more than Windows" and you get people who say "No! It's a myth! Spec them out the same and you'll see the Mac does not cost much more or even less!" Then we diligently spec them out, trying to match every specification as closely as possible, and when the PC inevitably costs less in come the goal post movers, who either claim things like "fit and finish" for the mac (which is also a lie as I've had some damn fine PC laptops like the Envy 14 or various Thinkpads in terms of build quality and materials) or that the comparison is invalid because the PC does not run OSX.
I'm assuming you replied to the wrong post, because otherwise your reply makes no sense. Point of the post you replied to was to make the Macbook cost as little as possible, while the point of the other comparison I posted was to make the machines match as much as possible. Macbook Pro with Retina display, upgraded to 2.6 GHz costs $2300, and still has a worse graphics card compared to the Envy. It also only has a 256GB SSD and un-upgradeable RAM. I can price the Envy to have a similar harddrive and it will still be cheaper, or I can install it after market, save $100, and still have an extra 750GB harddrive to sell or use as a spare. I can even upgrade that along the way as my needs grow and tech improves; not so much with the Retina. Also, the point of the comparison is to match specs as close as possible. This would include adding an ethernet dongle and a superdrive, for $110 more.
That review is from a 2009 model. The newer model comes with an 8 cell battery.
I did a similar comparison on July 11, 2012, exactly a month after the new macbook pro lineup was released:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2970727&cid=40615089
For this comparison, I didn't increase the price of the macbook pro from the base model, while maintaining the Envy was better specced and cost less. Even for this comparison, the Envy 15 beat the macbook pro by $450, and had better specs in screen size, screen resolution, graphics, harddrive, memory, and warranty.
This is the comparison I did over the summer when shopping for a new computer.
Envy 15
Display: 15.6" 1920x1080
Processor: 3rd generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3720QM Processor (2.6 GHz, 6MB L3 Cache)
Graphics: 1GB Radeon(TM) HD 7750M GDDR5 Graphics
Storage: 750GB 7200 rpm Hard Drive
Memory: 8GB 1600MHz
Height: 1.11 inches
Weight: 5.79 lbs
Warranty: 2 years
Price: $1,579.99
Macbook Pro 15
Display: 15.4" 1680x1050
Processor: 2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 1GB of GDDR5 memory
Storage: 750GB 7200-rpm hard drive
Memory: 8GB 1600MHz
Height: 0.95 inch (2.41 cm)
Weight: 5.6 pounds
Warranty: 1 year
Price: $2,349.00
Comes down to the Macbook Pro costing $770 more, with the Envy 15 having better specs in almost every category where I couldn't make them 1:1. The most notable deficiency of the Macbook Pro is the puzzlingly low resolution display for their "premium" label. And yes, before anyone says it the Envy 15 has amenities like aluminum housing, backlit keyboard, and slotload optical drive.
fines of up to two million yen ($25,700)
And this is still far less than the $150,000 maximum for the civil penalty in the US. Joel Tenenbaum owes the RIAA $675,000. He might prefer two years in jail compared to a lifetime of indentured servitude trying to pay them off.
That you can cheat like you described is a function of the assignment design, not the mode of education, and easily gameable assignment designs are usually a function of class size and instructor resources. I would imagine this physics course was a low level undergraduate course with over 30 students, more likely 100+. In all my physics courses past freshman year, assignments were created from scratch each week and involved a fair amount of creativity in the derivations and proofs. Projects also became more commonplace, where copying from another student is virtually impossible. These kinds of projects and teaching scenarios are at direct odds with the structure of these "MOOCs."
In short, I'd say while it is likely that you can get through maybe cheat your way through couple lower level undergraduate courses, it's very unlikely that you'll get outstanding grades in any of those courses at any university of reputable rigor, but even more unlikely that you'd make your way through an entire degree doing as such. For MOOCs, there's really no way to sidestep the gameable assignments if they hope to offer a comprehensive educational experience (from basics through advanced topics).
Free MOOCs take care of 1) and 2) simultaneously, so all things considered, is it really that shocking that they're becoming more popular and in-demand?
But they don't actually solve the goal of advancing your education (education in the credential sense at least). The problem with a class with 100,000 students is you have to grade 100,000 assignments, midterms, exams, etc. in an efficient manner. This completely eliminates all the most valuable assignment types like hands on projects, essays, papers, proofs, group projects, etc. and basically boils down tests and homework to multiple choice. And when your homeworks and tests are multiple choice and available to 100,000 people, you are bound to have some sort of cheating ring. How exactly do you, as an MOOC provider, certify that someone who has completed a course has done so on his own merits? This is a serious problem with the model that has not been solved.
And even without solving it, in the meantime we still don't know that these multiple-choice courses are actually teaching anybody anything. I didn't have any multiple choice tests or assignments after my freshman year in college, and I can't say I remember anything from any class in which I've done multiple choice work. If MOOCs can't figure out a better homework/test model than multiple choice, I'm not really sure MOOCs will ever match more traditional forms of education.
Without a requiring a large investment of cash, all but the most serious students students feel no remorse about walking away.
I'd say the lack of personal connections attributes to this as well. When I'm in a physical class, I appreciate the personal attention the instructor has given me, and feel a connection with my fellow students. I dropped a course only once, and when I did I actually felt like I was letting them down somehow. When you have 100,000 classmates compared to 10, dropping doesn't seem like such a big deal (especially when you don't have a voice during class time anyway).
Interesting that this pops up in my RSS feed just as I'm browsing MIT OCW for a new course to take. I've taken several already, and really enjoy augmenting my knowledge with the course materials. I've also taken most of the Stanford and Udacity courses, so I'm well aware of what they have to offer.
I'd say the value of these courses is personal growth. I do not see any possibility of using these online courses for any type of credentials, and I certainly wouldn't put my online course experience in front of my actual degree on any sort of resume or job application, but I would say "I have some experience dealing with X." In fact, I doubt I'd have the skills or base knowledge to understand most of the courses I've taken in advanced physics, mechanics, and computer science without my bachelor's degree.
No, the point is that Microsoft has been thinking about the metro UI for a very long time. To say that they pilfered elements from this specific video in 2009 and then rushed to implement them into Windows 8 with absolutely zero evidence is pretty underhanded. Where are all the commentors on the Apple v. Samsung stories right about now, who profess that touch-based user interface interactions that are obvious should not be patented and freely copied?
I mean, it's pretty easy to tell "first time accepted submitter oso2k" (by the way oso2k, what exactly are we supposed to infer at 4:30 in Microsoft's video, which is a black screen with a copyright notice? Great job doing your job Slashdot editors) doesn't have much experience with Windows 8, as the similarities he or she draws between the two GUIs are tenuous at best. The whole point of this "con10uum" interface is a 1D window manager which arranges open windows in a line. You essentially pan back and forth in this window list and you can resize and reorder windows using multi touch gestures. This is nothing like Windows 8, which essentially allows you to only swipe through windows in order and place at most two side by side.
The only real similarity between the two GUIs is the existence of a global menu (not novel) an application specific menu (not novel) and a gesture to activate them (not novel). 10/GUI suggest this gesture is tapping on a specialized region separate from the touch screen, while Windows 8 uses a swipe in gesture from the edge of a touch screen. These are very different operations and require specialized algorithms and technology for each case (gesture recognition, edge to edge touch detection etc).
Metro design elements date back to at least 2006 with the Zune and evolved in 2008 with the new Xbox 360 UI. The font Microsoft uses for Metro is Segoe and dates back to 2004. Seriously, I know Slashdot is anti MS, but this is just getting ridiculous... first a post about how only 25% of Windows 8 prefer the OS to other versions of Windows, when 74% of those polled say they never even used Windows 8, and now this?
You can indeed separate the UI by outright replacing the explorer shell. See:
http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/
http://www.emergedesktop.org/
http://sharpe.sourceforge.net/
I'd say make him a chief engineering officer or chief software architect or some other top R&D title. "Brilliant Jerks" tend not to be people persons (obviously) so they tend to shy away from client/investor/public facing roles like CEO, where they can do real damage. If this person insists on such a role, perhaps let him find out the hard way that if he wants a management role, he has to minimize his role in R&D doing the things he actually loves. I think he will make the decision on his own that he'd rather be head tinkerer than run the day to day of the company.
The poll is dumb, but not for the reasons you state. It amazes me that there are over 200 comments here and not a single one has noted that only 26% of survey takers responded that they've even used Windows 8. It would help for an actual link to the survey results in the summary (or maybe some actual statistics)
http://www.forumswindows8.com/general-discussion/windows-8-survey-half-prefer-windows-7-a-7853.htm
But this isn't even a survey of only Windows 8 users. If only those who responded that they've used Windows 8 marked it as their favorite, than 96% of Windows 8 users say it's their favorite Windows OS.
It's quite obvious that the respondents to this poll have not used Windows 8, when 17% respond they're concerned there is no sleep/shutdown/reboot option, when in fact they are all there. Or the fact that 26% are concerned about system requirements, when they are exactly the same as Windows 7 requirements. In most cases, Windows 8 performs better than Windows 7 on the same hardware. In fact, from the comments here, almost universally deriding the Metro interface, you'd think it would be a big concern... except only 18% of respondents reported it as a shortcoming.
So again, not quite sure what to make of this poll except a bunch of non-users clicked a bunch of random buttons.