Let's take a look at the title of the story again, shall we? "Even Windows 8 Users Prefer Windows 7" Now let's go ahead and read TFA: When asked "Which Windows Operating System have you used before?" only 26% of survey takers responded they've even used Windows 8. So let me get this straight: 25% of survey takers say Windows 8 is their favorite OS, yet only 26% of survey takers say that they've even used Windows 8. If my calculations are correct, and please, correct me if they are not: According to this survey 96% of Windows 8 users report that Windows 8 is their favorite Windows OS (assuming that no one who has not used Windows 8 checked it as their favorite).
But no, let's not even read the article or report any statistics in the summary. Let's just bash until our heads turn blue.
It seems that everyone here hasn't actually read the article (yourself included). First, to just address your post while 53% answered their favorite Windows OS was Windows 7, only 25% answered that their favorite was Windows 8, with the other 25% answering Windows XP or other.
However, when asked "Which OS have you used before" only 26% answered they've even used Windows 8. This is not even a survey of only windows 8 users. 74% of the people answering this survey have not even used Windows 8. This is even more obvious when looking at some of the concerns being compatibility, price, and system requirements and no options for reboot shutdown sleep since a) Windows 8 is compatible with the vast majority Windows 7 drivers and software b) Windows 8 upgrade is only $40 c) the system requirements are *exactly the same* as Windows 7 and d) there are in fact options for reboot shutdown and sleep (I have no idea why anyone would think otherwise).
I want a crap load of windows open and accessible via the taskbar. I want my normal icons and crap. I want to arrange more than three windows on a screen and to use multiple monitors easily.
How does windows 8 prevent you from doing any of that?
To say an OS is not finished is to imply that the product is deficient in one or more of the measures by which judge operating systems. Windows 8 is at least as good as Windows 7 in the aforementioned areas, and in many aspects better as I've outlined, with the only hotly contested aspect being user interface. It's well worth noting this, since the user interface is the most subjective and personal element of an OS (i.e. what works for one person might not work for the next (you and me) whereas poor performance and resource usage is the same no matter who you are). Basing the readiness of an OS off subjective criticism like this is not productive.
It clearly does not. I have tested this myself.
My experience contradicts yours. I've tested Windows 8 on a Dell 700m I bought in 2005 with a 1.6 Ghz Pentium M and 1GB RAM. It installs fine and works better than Windows 7 on that machine. XP works better than both, but the extreme example of installing Windows 8 on such old hardware demonstrates it's very versatile.
So it's not really from a cold boot.
When I press the power button on my dead and powerless desktop PC, I have a completely working desktop in 8 seconds. I don't care what hacks and magic is going on behind the scenes; the perception for me and all users is that it boots in 8 seconds. That you're splitting hairs on this point is pretty disingenuous. Even if we look at cold boots only Windows 8 performs better on the same hardware: Windows 8 boots in 23 seconds compared to 34 seconds for Windows 7 on that machine. The big difference is for Windows 7 it boots in 34 seconds every time. For windows 8, it boots in 23 seconds once, and boots in 8 seconds thereafter unless I have to install an update.
As I read that, it's all stuff and more that I have been taking for granted in KDE. Welcome to the modern age of desktops.
I was under the impression this discussion was with respect to Windows. That's great KDE has all those features. I'm partial to gnome myself. But it doesn't change the fact that compared to Windows 7, it's hard to say Windows 8 offers nothing more than a different UI.
But what about the regular users?
From my experience, regular users (parents, sister, friends, girlfriend, various other relatives) enjoy the new interface and find it much more appealing than the desktop for their daily activities like facebook, youtube, internet, email, chatting, music, etc. As for the general population, that remains to be seen. However, if there's one thing Slashdot has taught me it's that this is a terrible place to take the temperature on how the general population will receive a technology product.
There was a way. There was a toggle in the registry that was ripped out, and to/make sure/ nobody ever put it back in, Microsoft went and removed the legacy code in Explorer to make sure. A clickable batch file could have been distributed to users to let them toggle it.
You can still boot to desktop in RTM. I use Start8 to do so. There will probably be more in the future.
Also you are repeating the "metro is just the start screen" talking point that you guys use to brush off criticism of Metro, when Metro is so/much/ more than a start screen and is rather an entirely new paradigm for a GUI.
Yes, metro is more than a start screen and I enjoy some of the various aspects of the apps and the interface. But I was under the impression you would like to use absolutely no metro at all. In my day to day on Windows 8 I spend 99% of my time on the desktop, where I launch and use apps. I have several less commonly used apps pinned to my start screen, which I open once in a while, and I access the rest of my apps in the all apps list. At this level of usage my metro exposure is r
This is not a Windows issue but rather the way that developers support High DPI in their apps.
It's still sort of a Windows issue. The complaint the article raises is that there are no fine grained controls for adjusting dpi. The default setting was "too small" but flipping the switch to "make everything bigger" was too large. Also changing this doesn't change things on the desktop side, and adjusting things on the desktop side doesn't change the metro side. This should be reconciled sooner rather than later.
A careful reading of my post will reveal that for the most part I did not say it is more secure or stable or what not. For the most part, Windows 8 is very similar to Windows 7. If you want to claim that Windows 8 is overall a terrible OS, you're really claiming the same of Windows 7. As for a couple of your points:
Windows FLP, which boots in 7 seconds and not even a second after hitting enter on your password to get to a desktop. It does not belong to 8.
Features that have benefitted my workflow: enhanced multi-monitor support with a taskbar for both screens, and quick access to start button, app switching, or search/settings from any screen; improved task manager with more detailed process informatin, more detailed hardware information, process history, and startup program options; improved file copy with more detailed support for handling file collisions, grouping all file transfer in a single window, and ability to pause file transfers individually; improvements in explorer such as the re-inclusion of the up directory button in the, and the making more obvious features like show hidden files, show file extensions, and one feature I never knew about (invert selection) but thankfully have learned thanks to its inclusion as a top-level option; native support for mounting ISOs; native data usage monitoring over metered connections; and finally the ability to dock metro applications like news, chat, or music, or browser next to my desktop. Can't tell you how useful this last one has been, and will only improve as more useful apps are available in the store.
Out of the lists of changes to Windows in 8, none have listed any major changes in security. If there are changes, they aren't ever listed.
Windows 8 includes smart screen and windows security essentials are both baked into the OS. Yeah, I'd say for the majority of users it's more secure than Windows 7 out of the box. And as much as it's maligned on Slashdot, secure boot does in fact have a purpose other than locking out Linux.
No it isn't. That belongs to Windows FLP and XP.
Windows XP scales down better, but not up. Windows 8 has extensive built-in support for hardware not widely available when XP was released including better support for: multi core processors, wifi, SSD, USB 3.0, and bluetooth. However, I have managed to run Windows 8 on a machine from 2005 (Dell 700m) and it performs much better than 7, but not as good as XP.
But wait, isn't this article about the Intel CEO complaining about drivers not being ready?
No, you didn't read the article apparently. What the CEO said is unknown and if he said anything at all is a rumor. What the article says about drivers is some unknown and unnamed "others" are talking about lack of support.... for an unreleased OS. From my experience, Windows 7 drivers work fine for the most part, and Windows 8 specific drivers will be released in due time (you know... perhaps when the OS is actually available?) as has been the case with *every* major OS release. That drivers and applications are not available before the general availability of the OS is no indication that the OS is not actually ready.
No, it's not the only complaint even though you frame it that way. See this current article.
The article contains nothing except conjecture about what someone might have said, and some vague comments about drivers and nebulous bugs. Well... okay, so pretty much every OS ever has problems with drivers and bugs. You think if they problem were pervasive (as anyone can download the OS and try i
Why not? Point me to any interface you think is perfect and requires no learning, and I'll show you someone who does not understand how to use it without some training. Even some of the best interfaces have hidden elements. Take iOS for example, lauded for its intuitiveness, yet the app switcher is hidden, and even within the app switcher, controls like screen lock and playback are hidden. Siri functionality is also hidden by holding down the home button. Notifications are hidden by swiping down from the screen. The ability to rearrange apps and group them is hidden by press-holding on them, and the ability to exit that mode where they wiggle is hidden by pressing the home button. I've had to teach people how to use all the aforementioned functionality on iOS.
Or consider one of the most widely used UI elements, the context menu, which is hidden by a right click and changes depending where you click. Not intuitive. Or the difference between click-drag, double click, and single click. I've had to explain that to people as well. If someone doesn't know that double clicking very vast on an icon engages it, how are they supposed to figure it out? OSX, Linux, even Windows 7 and the now for some reason sacred start menu have hidden elements and require some degree of learning. Windows 8 is no different in this regard.
I guess that's your conjecture, but from the around dozen or so normal users I've sat in front of a new user account, they've watched the video and the very *first* thing they did when presented the new desktop was move their mouse to the corners and found the start button, settings, search, etc.
It's not pixel hunting. There are exactly two things you have to remember. Right give you start, search, settings; left gives you app switching. That's it, and most people can get by with 80% of the functionality they need.
The UI mess is any easy thing to complain about and one that people instantly see.
It's also the most opinionated (least grounded in objective fact), as it's based on personal preferences; and the easiest to fix, as you can a) use the OS without even using the metro UI, b) get used to it and learn how to use it, c) augment it with launchers of your choosing, or d) completely replace it with a different shell
The main problem is what technical or feature reasons are there to switch to Windows 8?
Highlights inclue native iso/vhd support; native USB 3.0 support; fast boot time (my laptop goes from battery out to usable desktop in 7 seconds); native file versioning; integrated family controls; integrated antimalware; greatly enhanced task manager which shows network and disk usage, maintains app history, and manages startup processes; natively estimate data usage over a wireless connection; vastly improved multi-monitor support, with a taskbar that spans both monitors, and multi monitor wallpaper support; new copy/move dialogue, with transfer rate graph and enhanced filename conflict resolution; improved graphics subsystems; logical storage space aggregation from multiple physical storage sources; lower system resource requirements by cutting down on services, which also optimizes battery life....
I could go on, but absolutely none of the aforementioned features have anything to do with the metro UI, nor do they require you to use it or even acknowledge its existence.
There's no start button - instead you must mouse down to pixel 0,0 where there's nothing to indicate "hey - start button here" and when you do discover it, its like being given a camaro, only to discover that the V-8 has been pulled out and rigged with a 4 cylinder. There's also another hidden bar for "charms." Why all the hiding?
The first time you log in to you user account, you are given a short graphical tutorial which explains "Move your mouse into any corner" and shows what happens when you do this to the top right (the start button and other charms appear). If you follow this advice and move your mouse into any corner you will find among other things: two start buttons, a search menu, a settings menu, a start button, and an application switcher.
I don't have any graphics drivers for my system, but installing the Windows 7 drivers in Windows 7 compatibility mode worked fine. This should work for a great majority of drivers. My dual graphics card on my laptop are working in Windows 8. On my tablet PC, the digitizer, thumb strip, and wwan card are all working, which I usually have a problem getting drivers for.
because people being able to intuitively use an OS isn't that important?
It's important, yes, but if this is in fact something "broken" with the OS, then it's fixable with a short tutorial or old-fashioned experience sitting down and using the thing, which is a lot easier than trying to fix an unstable performance hog like vista (which required several service packs to get right).
However, it's my opinion from my own usage and watching my friends and family use the new OS that it's not unintuitive to use. Microsoft tells you where to find the start menu and all charms the first time you log in. Installing apps is as easy as going to the marketplace. Launching apps just tap on them. They tell you how to switch apps when you log in for the first time as well. That's pretty much all you need to basically use your computer. If you're familiar with Windows 7, only a few simple instructions familiarize you with Windows 8.
In all the Slashdot articles trashing windows 8, the one and only criticism ever brought up here is of Metro and the start menu. Windows 8 is stable, uses minimal resources, performs well, features a variety of real improvements to the UI and workflow, is secure, is scalable to hardware even 7 years old (at least), is compatible with almost all software available for Windows 7, is compatible with almost all drivers for Windows 7... for almost all tangible measures of the ability of an operating sytem, it's ready, and has been for a long time. Public betas and pre-releases have been available for over a year now, including a free RTM evaluation, so we've all been free to test and evaluate it on our own machines. And still the *only* complaint anyone here (a place where Microsoft is derided at every turn for stability, performance, and security) ever manages to come up with is their own opinion on launcher preferences. If that's the worst you can come up with for Windows 8, I'd say it's good to go.
Problem was he was the only one. If the jury were made of 12 knowledgeable people, one person would have a harder time hijacking the verdict (12 angry men notwithstanding).
The mere fact of publishing it establishes copyright. That's how it works in the US; there is no need to register copyright unless you want to go for statutory damages (maximum award of $150,000). He'll probably need to prove he owns the copyright... easy enough to show by providing the source files used to make the video. The license establishes the fact that the other party did not have the right to use the content. These two elements together build a case of infringement since the infringers can't show a) they made the video and b) they had license to use the video.
Bing does this as well, I do not think it is particularly fair to start fining people for doing something that has been going on and in the open since internet searches were first born.
Just as bundling a browser with an OS is something that has been going on since the internet was born, yet Microsoft must provide a ballot screen in the EU and Apple does not. Microsoft promoting its products in Bing results puts them in front of at best 20% of the market. Google gets their products in front of 80% of the market. One company has more influence that the other in this case, just as Microsoft has more influence than Apple in the OS market.
You don't even have to be a monopoly to run afowl of antitrust laws; you just have to be able to exert undue influence on market forces. Since Google has a search market share of 70%-80%, promoting their products in those searches has undue influence.
The fact that he's done little to establish copyright (no notices in the video) might make that more difficult.
The video is labeled as covered under the standard Youtube license, which reserves all rights of the copyright holder. This is stated clearly under the video.
With a bit of luck you might be able to get them to cover some of the legal costs, but don't count on that even covering all the expenses.
Copyright is a loser pays system. By law, you can get them to cover all your legal expenses, with interest. In terms of mounting an offense, if you have a registration, and you can show they don't have a license to use your content, the case is pretty open and shut.
That said, the biggest problem is probably serving them, since they're in another country. Once you do they probably won't answer the summons and be held in default. Then the second biggest problem is probably collecting, again for the same reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take a look at the title of the story again, shall we? "Even Windows 8 Users Prefer Windows 7" Now let's go ahead and read TFA: When asked "Which Windows Operating System have you used before?" only 26% of survey takers responded they've even used Windows 8. So let me get this straight: 25% of survey takers say Windows 8 is their favorite OS, yet only 26% of survey takers say that they've even used Windows 8. If my calculations are correct, and please, correct me if they are not: According to this survey 96% of Windows 8 users report that Windows 8 is their favorite Windows OS (assuming that no one who has not used Windows 8 checked it as their favorite).
But no, let's not even read the article or report any statistics in the summary. Let's just bash until our heads turn blue.
It seems that everyone here hasn't actually read the article (yourself included). First, to just address your post while 53% answered their favorite Windows OS was Windows 7, only 25% answered that their favorite was Windows 8, with the other 25% answering Windows XP or other.
However, when asked "Which OS have you used before" only 26% answered they've even used Windows 8. This is not even a survey of only windows 8 users. 74% of the people answering this survey have not even used Windows 8. This is even more obvious when looking at some of the concerns being compatibility, price, and system requirements and no options for reboot shutdown sleep since a) Windows 8 is compatible with the vast majority Windows 7 drivers and software b) Windows 8 upgrade is only $40 c) the system requirements are *exactly the same* as Windows 7 and d) there are in fact options for reboot shutdown and sleep (I have no idea why anyone would think otherwise).
It's pretty disgusting that you can monetize images of someone's brain. I wonder how Einstein would feel about that.
I want a crap load of windows open and accessible via the taskbar. I want my normal icons and crap. I want to arrange more than three windows on a screen and to use multiple monitors easily.
How does windows 8 prevent you from doing any of that?
Then why mention them except as marketing fluff?
To say an OS is not finished is to imply that the product is deficient in one or more of the measures by which judge operating systems. Windows 8 is at least as good as Windows 7 in the aforementioned areas, and in many aspects better as I've outlined, with the only hotly contested aspect being user interface. It's well worth noting this, since the user interface is the most subjective and personal element of an OS (i.e. what works for one person might not work for the next (you and me) whereas poor performance and resource usage is the same no matter who you are). Basing the readiness of an OS off subjective criticism like this is not productive.
It clearly does not. I have tested this myself.
My experience contradicts yours. I've tested Windows 8 on a Dell 700m I bought in 2005 with a 1.6 Ghz Pentium M and 1GB RAM. It installs fine and works better than Windows 7 on that machine. XP works better than both, but the extreme example of installing Windows 8 on such old hardware demonstrates it's very versatile.
So it's not really from a cold boot.
When I press the power button on my dead and powerless desktop PC, I have a completely working desktop in 8 seconds. I don't care what hacks and magic is going on behind the scenes; the perception for me and all users is that it boots in 8 seconds. That you're splitting hairs on this point is pretty disingenuous. Even if we look at cold boots only Windows 8 performs better on the same hardware: Windows 8 boots in 23 seconds compared to 34 seconds for Windows 7 on that machine. The big difference is for Windows 7 it boots in 34 seconds every time. For windows 8, it boots in 23 seconds once, and boots in 8 seconds thereafter unless I have to install an update.
As I read that, it's all stuff and more that I have been taking for granted in KDE. Welcome to the modern age of desktops.
I was under the impression this discussion was with respect to Windows. That's great KDE has all those features. I'm partial to gnome myself. But it doesn't change the fact that compared to Windows 7, it's hard to say Windows 8 offers nothing more than a different UI.
But what about the regular users?
From my experience, regular users (parents, sister, friends, girlfriend, various other relatives) enjoy the new interface and find it much more appealing than the desktop for their daily activities like facebook, youtube, internet, email, chatting, music, etc. As for the general population, that remains to be seen. However, if there's one thing Slashdot has taught me it's that this is a terrible place to take the temperature on how the general population will receive a technology product.
There was a way. There was a toggle in the registry that was ripped out, and to /make sure/ nobody ever put it back in, Microsoft went and removed the legacy code in Explorer to make sure. A clickable batch file could have been distributed to users to let them toggle it.
You can still boot to desktop in RTM. I use Start8 to do so. There will probably be more in the future.
Also you are repeating the "metro is just the start screen" talking point that you guys use to brush off criticism of Metro, when Metro is so /much/ more than a start screen and is rather an entirely new paradigm for a GUI.
Yes, metro is more than a start screen and I enjoy some of the various aspects of the apps and the interface. But I was under the impression you would like to use absolutely no metro at all. In my day to day on Windows 8 I spend 99% of my time on the desktop, where I launch and use apps. I have several less commonly used apps pinned to my start screen, which I open once in a while, and I access the rest of my apps in the all apps list. At this level of usage my metro exposure is r
This is not a Windows issue but rather the way that developers support High DPI in their apps.
It's still sort of a Windows issue. The complaint the article raises is that there are no fine grained controls for adjusting dpi. The default setting was "too small" but flipping the switch to "make everything bigger" was too large. Also changing this doesn't change things on the desktop side, and adjusting things on the desktop side doesn't change the metro side. This should be reconciled sooner rather than later.
Windows FLP, which boots in 7 seconds and not even a second after hitting enter on your password to get to a desktop. It does not belong to 8.
The same can be said for Windows 8. My machine boots in 7 seconds to a usable desktop (no harddrive churning or loading). Don't believe me? http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-8-Boots-in-8-Seconds-220917.shtml
Marketing nonsense.
Features that have benefitted my workflow: enhanced multi-monitor support with a taskbar for both screens, and quick access to start button, app switching, or search/settings from any screen; improved task manager with more detailed process informatin, more detailed hardware information, process history, and startup program options; improved file copy with more detailed support for handling file collisions, grouping all file transfer in a single window, and ability to pause file transfers individually; improvements in explorer such as the re-inclusion of the up directory button in the, and the making more obvious features like show hidden files, show file extensions, and one feature I never knew about (invert selection) but thankfully have learned thanks to its inclusion as a top-level option; native support for mounting ISOs; native data usage monitoring over metered connections; and finally the ability to dock metro applications like news, chat, or music, or browser next to my desktop. Can't tell you how useful this last one has been, and will only improve as more useful apps are available in the store.
Out of the lists of changes to Windows in 8, none have listed any major changes in security. If there are changes, they aren't ever listed.
Windows 8 includes smart screen and windows security essentials are both baked into the OS. Yeah, I'd say for the majority of users it's more secure than Windows 7 out of the box. And as much as it's maligned on Slashdot, secure boot does in fact have a purpose other than locking out Linux.
No it isn't. That belongs to Windows FLP and XP.
Windows XP scales down better, but not up. Windows 8 has extensive built-in support for hardware not widely available when XP was released including better support for: multi core processors, wifi, SSD, USB 3.0, and bluetooth. However, I have managed to run Windows 8 on a machine from 2005 (Dell 700m) and it performs much better than 7, but not as good as XP.
But wait, isn't this article about the Intel CEO complaining about drivers not being ready?
No, you didn't read the article apparently. What the CEO said is unknown and if he said anything at all is a rumor. What the article says about drivers is some unknown and unnamed "others" are talking about lack of support.... for an unreleased OS. From my experience, Windows 7 drivers work fine for the most part, and Windows 8 specific drivers will be released in due time (you know... perhaps when the OS is actually available?) as has been the case with *every* major OS release. That drivers and applications are not available before the general availability of the OS is no indication that the OS is not actually ready.
No, it's not the only complaint even though you frame it that way. See this current article.
The article contains nothing except conjecture about what someone might have said, and some vague comments about drivers and nebulous bugs. Well... okay, so pretty much every OS ever has problems with drivers and bugs. You think if they problem were pervasive (as anyone can download the OS and try i
Why not? Point me to any interface you think is perfect and requires no learning, and I'll show you someone who does not understand how to use it without some training. Even some of the best interfaces have hidden elements. Take iOS for example, lauded for its intuitiveness, yet the app switcher is hidden, and even within the app switcher, controls like screen lock and playback are hidden. Siri functionality is also hidden by holding down the home button. Notifications are hidden by swiping down from the screen. The ability to rearrange apps and group them is hidden by press-holding on them, and the ability to exit that mode where they wiggle is hidden by pressing the home button. I've had to teach people how to use all the aforementioned functionality on iOS.
Or consider one of the most widely used UI elements, the context menu, which is hidden by a right click and changes depending where you click. Not intuitive. Or the difference between click-drag, double click, and single click. I've had to explain that to people as well. If someone doesn't know that double clicking very vast on an icon engages it, how are they supposed to figure it out? OSX, Linux, even Windows 7 and the now for some reason sacred start menu have hidden elements and require some degree of learning. Windows 8 is no different in this regard.
I guess that's your conjecture, but from the around dozen or so normal users I've sat in front of a new user account, they've watched the video and the very *first* thing they did when presented the new desktop was move their mouse to the corners and found the start button, settings, search, etc.
It's not pixel hunting. There are exactly two things you have to remember. Right give you start, search, settings; left gives you app switching. That's it, and most people can get by with 80% of the functionality they need.
The UI mess is any easy thing to complain about and one that people instantly see.
It's also the most opinionated (least grounded in objective fact), as it's based on personal preferences; and the easiest to fix, as you can a) use the OS without even using the metro UI, b) get used to it and learn how to use it, c) augment it with launchers of your choosing, or d) completely replace it with a different shell
The main problem is what technical or feature reasons are there to switch to Windows 8?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_8
Highlights inclue native iso/vhd support; native USB 3.0 support; fast boot time (my laptop goes from battery out to usable desktop in 7 seconds); native file versioning; integrated family controls; integrated antimalware; greatly enhanced task manager which shows network and disk usage, maintains app history, and manages startup processes; natively estimate data usage over a wireless connection; vastly improved multi-monitor support, with a taskbar that spans both monitors, and multi monitor wallpaper support; new copy/move dialogue, with transfer rate graph and enhanced filename conflict resolution; improved graphics subsystems; logical storage space aggregation from multiple physical storage sources; lower system resource requirements by cutting down on services, which also optimizes battery life....
I could go on, but absolutely none of the aforementioned features have anything to do with the metro UI, nor do they require you to use it or even acknowledge its existence.
There's no start button - instead you must mouse down to pixel 0,0 where there's nothing to indicate "hey - start button here" and when you do discover it, its like being given a camaro, only to discover that the V-8 has been pulled out and rigged with a 4 cylinder. There's also another hidden bar for "charms." Why all the hiding?
The first time you log in to you user account, you are given a short graphical tutorial which explains "Move your mouse into any corner" and shows what happens when you do this to the top right (the start button and other charms appear). If you follow this advice and move your mouse into any corner you will find among other things: two start buttons, a search menu, a settings menu, a start button, and an application switcher.
I don't have any graphics drivers for my system, but installing the Windows 7 drivers in Windows 7 compatibility mode worked fine. This should work for a great majority of drivers. My dual graphics card on my laptop are working in Windows 8. On my tablet PC, the digitizer, thumb strip, and wwan card are all working, which I usually have a problem getting drivers for.
because people being able to intuitively use an OS isn't that important?
It's important, yes, but if this is in fact something "broken" with the OS, then it's fixable with a short tutorial or old-fashioned experience sitting down and using the thing, which is a lot easier than trying to fix an unstable performance hog like vista (which required several service packs to get right).
However, it's my opinion from my own usage and watching my friends and family use the new OS that it's not unintuitive to use. Microsoft tells you where to find the start menu and all charms the first time you log in. Installing apps is as easy as going to the marketplace. Launching apps just tap on them. They tell you how to switch apps when you log in for the first time as well. That's pretty much all you need to basically use your computer. If you're familiar with Windows 7, only a few simple instructions familiarize you with Windows 8.
Or here: http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
Or here: http://www.lee-soft.com/vistart/
In all the Slashdot articles trashing windows 8, the one and only criticism ever brought up here is of Metro and the start menu. Windows 8 is stable, uses minimal resources, performs well, features a variety of real improvements to the UI and workflow, is secure, is scalable to hardware even 7 years old (at least), is compatible with almost all software available for Windows 7, is compatible with almost all drivers for Windows 7... for almost all tangible measures of the ability of an operating sytem, it's ready, and has been for a long time. Public betas and pre-releases have been available for over a year now, including a free RTM evaluation, so we've all been free to test and evaluate it on our own machines. And still the *only* complaint anyone here (a place where Microsoft is derided at every turn for stability, performance, and security) ever manages to come up with is their own opinion on launcher preferences. If that's the worst you can come up with for Windows 8, I'd say it's good to go.
But in reality Microsoft always asks when they want to collect some anonymous data and it's always opt-in.
No always. The smartscreen filter for Windows 8 is opt-out.
Problem was he was the only one. If the jury were made of 12 knowledgeable people, one person would have a harder time hijacking the verdict (12 angry men notwithstanding).
You know, I actually agree with you 100%, but at least they're being consistent, which is I guess as much as we can ask.
The mere fact of publishing it establishes copyright. That's how it works in the US; there is no need to register copyright unless you want to go for statutory damages (maximum award of $150,000). He'll probably need to prove he owns the copyright... easy enough to show by providing the source files used to make the video. The license establishes the fact that the other party did not have the right to use the content. These two elements together build a case of infringement since the infringers can't show a) they made the video and b) they had license to use the video.
Bing does this as well, I do not think it is particularly fair to start fining people for doing something that has been going on and in the open since internet searches were first born.
Just as bundling a browser with an OS is something that has been going on since the internet was born, yet Microsoft must provide a ballot screen in the EU and Apple does not. Microsoft promoting its products in Bing results puts them in front of at best 20% of the market. Google gets their products in front of 80% of the market. One company has more influence that the other in this case, just as Microsoft has more influence than Apple in the OS market.
You don't even have to be a monopoly to run afowl of antitrust laws; you just have to be able to exert undue influence on market forces. Since Google has a search market share of 70%-80%, promoting their products in those searches has undue influence.
The fact that he's done little to establish copyright (no notices in the video) might make that more difficult.
The video is labeled as covered under the standard Youtube license, which reserves all rights of the copyright holder. This is stated clearly under the video.
With a bit of luck you might be able to get them to cover some of the legal costs, but don't count on that even covering all the expenses.
Copyright is a loser pays system. By law, you can get them to cover all your legal expenses, with interest. In terms of mounting an offense, if you have a registration, and you can show they don't have a license to use your content, the case is pretty open and shut.
That said, the biggest problem is probably serving them, since they're in another country. Once you do they probably won't answer the summons and be held in default. Then the second biggest problem is probably collecting, again for the same reasons.
Coincidentally, I'm watching Deep Impact now on Netflix.
Lots of asteroids, check
Black president, check
All the elements of the making.... this is fiction, right?