Normally it's achieved via a soft/hardkey dedicated to the combo keystroke.
Oh shit, sorry, I didn't realize you were joking. Most other sites have people actually enthusiastic about this thing and debating between each other about the merits of what is known so far - but I guess a 90's era joke is what's first modded up to Score: 5.
Sounds like the problem my wife's HTC Desire was having with a particular hotel's WiFi network when we were traveling in Europe. Of course, it probably wasn't reasonable for me to ask the hotel manager to reboot their router... could I have?:)
In my organisation (in Australia) we are allowed to use the Internet for "reasonable personal use" so long as we don't get carried away and still get our work done. The reason they allow us this is twofold:
(1) Your personal life doesn't just stop the moment you sit down at work. You might need to check up on some details about an account, pay a bill, find out an address, whatever. You can do these at home, but then this leads to the next reason: (2) People are going to use the Internet for personal use ANYWAY. Might as well accept this and employ some reasonable access requirements and processes rather than throw the hammer down block it all, which will only end up with people finding more creative ways to bypass your locks.
Seriously, it doesn't have to be black and white. No wonder you guys have such a reputation as having such bad work conditions over there.
Interesting yes, but not totally surprising. For all the legitimately intelligent people here, a lot of them (as well as the rest I suppose) are total hypocrites. There's a reason Slashdot is laughed at by other tech sites.
I really do not understand geeks anymore. You guys are supposed to be smart.
You have a fully functional (hardware-wise) computer that works with Windows 7 but has issues with Linux. Instead of just learning how to use Windows 7 efficiently and hence not having these issues in the first place (in addition to being able to use suspend as you'd expect on a laptop), you deliberately work with it in a gimped state so that you can use Linux.
It seems that as smart as geeks suppose themselves to be, they sometime appear single minded in that they'll not choose the best option for their hardware, which isn't always Linux. Maybe it's pride, maybe it's hate, but it sounds completely emotion-based and not logical at all.
This is kinda cool. You can choose stuff. It's a fork of Ubuntu or something
Last time I tried Debian (about a year ago), I had to download a bunch of packages, compile and rebuild debs just so that subpixel hinting for fonts would actually work as seen in Ubuntu and Mint. It's something I'm used to and although I know there are licensing issues as to why Debian won't put it in by default, I still wanted it for a modern system. At least Mint has a Debian variant which seems to have had this modification done for you already.
Really? I would have thought the GNOME developers would have taken that title. Which is a fucking shame when you think about it - is there no-one left in Linux land who has enough sense to stop breaking things that work and instead just improve on removing the deficiencies of things that already exist?
This XFCE is sounding more desirable every day. Looks kinda basic but at this point I'm much more prepared to deal with a simple interface style so long as it's robust and very quick.
Look, the problem with arguing things like this (and something that I keep forgetting) is that on Slashdot, I'm way out of my league. There are plenty of people here who've debated the subject of closed vs. open source to death, so I can't really contribute much except my own opinion, and I'm really not eager to drag out a debate.
What I will say is that the proponents for free and open source software seem to be more interested in the free nature than the actual software itself. If the software is not particularly good compared to its proprietary alternative, this doesn't matter - it should be used anyway even if it's lacking in quality and/or functionality, simply because it's free/open-source. I have never been particularly comfortable with this view, since it means lowering one's standards when everyone else seems to be happy using the superior alternative.
I want free/open-source software to be BETTER than the proprietary alternatives, such that I want to use it regardless of it being FOSS. For some cases this is the case, but for a lot of cases, it's not. It's when I put forth the position that life is imperfect and that sometimes proprietary software is the better choice (regardless of whether it's ideal or not) that some people don't like hearing. Once this happens, I wonder if I should have had a different hobby.
And if you really think free software is no big deal, then why spend so much time with ad-hominem attacks? What is your motive?
I spent the best part of 10 years playing with Linux on and off, trying desperately to convert to Linux because I was influenced by such figureheads like Stallman as well as fanboys (Slashdot included) telling me it was better than Windows and I would benefit from the freedom. All I ended up with was tons of wasted time, a lot of substandard software, very few games, a ton of FUD and promises that never came true, and I'm fucking angry of all the time I could have spent just continuing with Windows and enjoying actually USING my computer instead of tinkering forever.
My motive is that I have a huge chip on my shoulder and I don't like seeing people misled by Stallman, the FSF and such folks. And yes, free software is no big deal. People use proprietary software all the time and make plenty of useful things with it. For goodness sake, life doesn't have to be a battle all the time. You can use closed-source software without feeling bad about it.
Here's the issue: People like ESR and Richard Stallman believe that closed-source/proprietary software is, well, evil. They've latched onto this idea for their own reasons, and while they have some merit, they are a bit too black & white for most people to agree with. The world isn't black & white.
But more importantly, these individuals live and breath computers and the philosophy of technology. In that sense, free software is one of the most important things to them, and hence they'll argue that it has a higher priority than most things (Stallman in particular). That's what THEY think is important - doesn't mean it actually is for most people. Who says they're right? Stallman is a borderline Asperger's sufferer, of course he'll be fixated on this. You can listen to what he has to say, but following him without thinking things through is bloody dangerous and foolhardy.
But they think it's the most important thing in the world because it's their primary interest in life. That's all it is.
The great thing about Linux is the freedom. I have a laptop where the graphics card went kaput. (Old NVIDIA thing with the thermal death.) If it were running Windows, it would start to load the graphics driver and then freeze. Sometimes it would run for a few hours before freezing.
But the great thing about Linux is that I can tell it to ignore the built-in graphics chip. Now I'm using it as a terminal with an external screen and a USB graphics chip. I couldn't do this with Windows, but it's possible with Linux.
The problem with your example is that it's a very unique edge case. For the general population, such a benefit would be lost on them and they'd never know how to fix it short of replacing the card (if feasible).
Linux might have more freedom, but for most people they won't have much of a use for it, and so it doesn't provide enough of a compelling argument to use instead of something established, well-known and with a wealth of support like Windows or OS X.
I just hope Raymond and Stallman also plant their own crops, cook their own food and never eat out. Otherwise their nutrition and effectively their health is in the hands of another party, which likely doesn't provide the exact recipe for the preparation of said food.
Or is software a topic special enough to them that this hypocrisy with consuming closed-source food is OK?
Funny thing is, I don't actually like Steam anymore. I've written a post which explained why I don't use it anymore and why I'm worried about the increasing reliance publishers are having with it. but I'm surprised Stallman is not pushing entirely against it completely. I would have thought he'd at least grant some leeway with playing proprietary games as opposed to linking full access to your software to a DRM platform.
As for harmful effects of closed source software in general, I think most people on the planet who rely on such software are doing just fine. It's really not that big a deal - if it were it wouldn't be so hard to convince non-nerds why free software is supposedly so important; for most people issue with closed-source software are at best hypothetical, and will likely only ever be that.
Does it actually remove it, or just remove the necessity of typing it in at boot? I wouldn't want an internet-facing computer to be without a password, I just want it to boot when I turn it on.
It removes the password completely. There are some protections in place though for accounts without a password (e.g. by default, you can't remote desktop into a Windows machine if the target user account lacks a password - if necessary this can be changed via a group policy setting on the target machine).
Of course, if you're a gamer (I used to be) you NEED Windows.
I'm slowly (very slowly) progressing from being a regular gamer to being a very, very light gamer. In two years time I expect to become a father and so won't have much time for gaming anyway, plus I kinda want to create and build things as opposed to just playing games as a hobby.
while others don't enjoy being the subject of stares.
Anyone who works as a booth babe and doesn't like being stared at, probably should find another line of work. Kinda goes with the territory (particularly with the stuff they wear often).
Not being able to easily find out how to do something is a glaring flaw in documentation. Microsoft used to have excellent docs back in the DOS days, but the help has gone from excellent to nearly useless.
At least Windows has somewhat human-friendly documentation (even if it's often useless). Linux has man pages clearly written by developers which very often don't even come with examples. I find myself relying on the Internet to solve both Windows and Linux issues since the supplied documentation tends to be lacking for both.
Where's the documentation? I listed the inability to do that in a comment last week, and only ONE person knew how to do it, and his explanation (although simple, one command) required the command line.
Well with Windows 7: Start menu/orb -> Click the user picture at the top of the menu -> Click "Remove your password"
If your setup is different then let me know and I'll tell you what the option is. If it's an edge case I'm prepared to accept its as requiring the CMD but it'd have to be quite unusual.
And yes, activation is a bitch. I personally use a little tool someone developed which permanently activates any version of Vista/7. Not particularly legit but it has got me out of an issue with a legitimately activate machine deactivating itself at some point and me not wanting to deal with Microsoft.
Look, I don't HATE Linux. I've just spent many years trying to convert and falling back to Windows because of issues with application quality and availability, as well as an understanding that by using Linux I'm voluntarily committing myself to being part of a minority of computer users and hence dealing with the resulting lack of support and issues that Windows users simply don't have to worry about (e.g. will this piece of hardware work completely in Linux? will this.doc file I must be able to read properly work with OpenOffice/LibreOffice?). I don't want to deal with those kinds of issues anymore, so I deal with Windows issues instead because I grew up with it enough to know all the kinks. That's my story.:)
Steam is one of the worst forms of DRM out there, and yet it's still widely accepted for some reason. Having access to all of your games tied to a single account seems extremely risky to me - all of your eggs in one basket as it were. If your account is compromised/disabled for any reason, Valve servers/database have issues, a multitude of potential what-ifs resulting from trusting a single vendor for the keys for all your gaming just doesn't sit well with me, and believe me I've tried living Steam for YEARS, but the nagging feeling of not being able to have direct (executable) access to my games just hasn't disappeared and instead actually got worse.
I'm now a big fan of GOG since they have full installers you can download and backup to an external HDD in my case, so that the control remains entirely within your hands and nothing that happens with Valve or even your GOG account will prevent you from playing said games now or in the future. Plus they have many more extras such as soundtracks, avatars, wallpapers and art for a lot of games which often cost more to obtain in Steam if it's even available anyway. It's even got newish games like Alan Wake, so the "Good Old Games" title is gone for a reason.
My biggest worry is that if Steam in Linux is successful, we'll have more games come to Linux but are tied exclusively to Steam. There are too many Windows games which require Steam now as it's assumed anyone who games on the PC doesn't have a problem with it. For people like me who are brain damaged and cannot shake the issue of network-authenticated DRM, it's just going to get worse. It's also rather hard to have an opinion of which you're in the minority. Maybe I should just give up gaming entirely and find a healthier hobby.
It's simple than that for me. I don't like smooth scrolling because it feels LAGGY. It's the same reason why I don't like mouse smoothing in games and disable vertical sync in (most) games - input lag royally pisses me off, and the reaction of pressing/clicking/rolling down and having a brief delay between when you performed the action and when it actually finishes on the screen, makes smooth scrolling too annoying for me to use.
Agree with the AC. This is what I get too on Windows 7. There's a possibility that the page launcher looks dodgy in other operating systems or that an extension is interfering. But hey, it's human nature to bash rather than understand why something is not working like you'd expect it to, and geeks aren't immune from
Compared to previous Windows? Nice. Compared to any other OS? Not the least bit nice, unless by "nice" you mean "pretty", because W7 is indeed pretty, but I don't need my tools to be pretty. I feel sorry for those of you who have only used Windows. You don't know what you're missing.
Ha! You think I've only used Windows? Your premise seems to suggest that anyone who's used Linux would never willingly go back to Linux. There are plenty of people who've tried Linux and found it not to their liking. I'm one of them.
A lot of your complaints are trivial and show ignorance on how to do something rather than a flaw with Windows itself. Not knowing how to do something doesn't mean the underlying platform is rubbish, it just means you don't know (e.g. "I don't find having to go to a command line to enable it to boot without a password nice" -> easy enough to do in XP through to 7 the GUI). You have a mental blocker than prevents you from seeing Windows fairly compared to Linux. Perhaps you're more attuned to Linux, that's fine. But I can provide enough complains about Linux (which you'd disagree with) that prevent me from being productive enough to spend most of my time with it compared to Windows, so the issue of OS flamewars and an emotional connection to an OS is pointless because it results in a closed-minded view.
Serious. I've used Linux. It just doesn't offer much benefit since you're treated like a fucking third-class user at best in software and hardware land.
It's as if people here are completely disconnected from the reality that a lot of people on a more reasonable site like ArsTechnica are and can't comprehend that something like Windows 7 is a very nice OS.
Hasn't the history of tablets taught you nothing? It's precisely the use of traditional operating systems grafted onto tablets which are the prime reason for their lackluster performance... at least until the iPad with a tablet-oriented interface.
Point being, the "playskool" interface makes perfect sense on a touch-based device. There's a reason most people believe Windows 8 has a much higher chance of success on tablets instead of on the desktop.
including a live session with an nVidia support tech
How the heck do you get that kind of support? I'm guessing you're not just a regular folk and instead have some kind of development partnership with nVidia?
The video probably isn't quite as good as the Pi (it maxes at 720p), but who is going to be doing sophisticated video with these devices anyway, at this stage? It's a hobbyist board.
A lot of people are buying the Pi to run XBMC. Since it can support 1080p flawlessly and the Via APC cannot, well... for many people the choice is obvious.
With any luck, the (relatively) open nature of the Pi and increasing size of the community will make it a more interesting option than competing boards, which is the reason why the Arduinos are still very popular despite being outclassed hardware-wise by other boards.
One could always argue that Windows 8 is a real-world testbed for Microsoft to experiment with and gauge opinion as to what works and what doesn't, so that Windows 9 refined the good and ditches the bad. Kinda like they did with Vista and then Windows 7.
Of course, to do this people have to be suckered into using Windows 8 and Microsoft runs the risk of pissing off a great many people. Plus those who paid money for Windows 8 won't like being thought of as guinea-pigs.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally it's achieved via a soft/hardkey dedicated to the combo keystroke.
Oh shit, sorry, I didn't realize you were joking. Most other sites have people actually enthusiastic about this thing and debating between each other about the merits of what is known so far - but I guess a 90's era joke is what's first modded up to Score: 5.
Sounds like the problem my wife's HTC Desire was having with a particular hotel's WiFi network when we were traveling in Europe. Of course, it probably wasn't reasonable for me to ask the hotel manager to reboot their router... could I have? :)
In my organisation (in Australia) we are allowed to use the Internet for "reasonable personal use" so long as we don't get carried away and still get our work done. The reason they allow us this is twofold:
(1) Your personal life doesn't just stop the moment you sit down at work. You might need to check up on some details about an account, pay a bill, find out an address, whatever. You can do these at home, but then this leads to the next reason:
(2) People are going to use the Internet for personal use ANYWAY. Might as well accept this and employ some reasonable access requirements and processes rather than throw the hammer down block it all, which will only end up with people finding more creative ways to bypass your locks.
Seriously, it doesn't have to be black and white. No wonder you guys have such a reputation as having such bad work conditions over there.
I don't understand your example.
Interesting yes, but not totally surprising. For all the legitimately intelligent people here, a lot of them (as well as the rest I suppose) are total hypocrites. There's a reason Slashdot is laughed at by other tech sites.
I really do not understand geeks anymore. You guys are supposed to be smart.
You have a fully functional (hardware-wise) computer that works with Windows 7 but has issues with Linux. Instead of just learning how to use Windows 7 efficiently and hence not having these issues in the first place (in addition to being able to use suspend as you'd expect on a laptop), you deliberately work with it in a gimped state so that you can use Linux.
It seems that as smart as geeks suppose themselves to be, they sometime appear single minded in that they'll not choose the best option for their hardware, which isn't always Linux. Maybe it's pride, maybe it's hate, but it sounds completely emotion-based and not logical at all.
Last time I tried Debian (about a year ago), I had to download a bunch of packages, compile and rebuild debs just so that subpixel hinting for fonts would actually work as seen in Ubuntu and Mint. It's something I'm used to and although I know there are licensing issues as to why Debian won't put it in by default, I still wanted it for a modern system. At least Mint has a Debian variant which seems to have had this modification done for you already.
Really? I would have thought the GNOME developers would have taken that title. Which is a fucking shame when you think about it - is there no-one left in Linux land who has enough sense to stop breaking things that work and instead just improve on removing the deficiencies of things that already exist?
This XFCE is sounding more desirable every day. Looks kinda basic but at this point I'm much more prepared to deal with a simple interface style so long as it's robust and very quick.
Oh crap. It's you again. :)
Look, the problem with arguing things like this (and something that I keep forgetting) is that on Slashdot, I'm way out of my league. There are plenty of people here who've debated the subject of closed vs. open source to death, so I can't really contribute much except my own opinion, and I'm really not eager to drag out a debate.
What I will say is that the proponents for free and open source software seem to be more interested in the free nature than the actual software itself. If the software is not particularly good compared to its proprietary alternative, this doesn't matter - it should be used anyway even if it's lacking in quality and/or functionality, simply because it's free/open-source. I have never been particularly comfortable with this view, since it means lowering one's standards when everyone else seems to be happy using the superior alternative.
I want free/open-source software to be BETTER than the proprietary alternatives, such that I want to use it regardless of it being FOSS. For some cases this is the case, but for a lot of cases, it's not. It's when I put forth the position that life is imperfect and that sometimes proprietary software is the better choice (regardless of whether it's ideal or not) that some people don't like hearing. Once this happens, I wonder if I should have had a different hobby.
I spent the best part of 10 years playing with Linux on and off, trying desperately to convert to Linux because I was influenced by such figureheads like Stallman as well as fanboys (Slashdot included) telling me it was better than Windows and I would benefit from the freedom. All I ended up with was tons of wasted time, a lot of substandard software, very few games, a ton of FUD and promises that never came true, and I'm fucking angry of all the time I could have spent just continuing with Windows and enjoying actually USING my computer instead of tinkering forever.
My motive is that I have a huge chip on my shoulder and I don't like seeing people misled by Stallman, the FSF and such folks. And yes, free software is no big deal. People use proprietary software all the time and make plenty of useful things with it. For goodness sake, life doesn't have to be a battle all the time. You can use closed-source software without feeling bad about it.
Here's the issue: People like ESR and Richard Stallman believe that closed-source/proprietary software is, well, evil. They've latched onto this idea for their own reasons, and while they have some merit, they are a bit too black & white for most people to agree with. The world isn't black & white.
But more importantly, these individuals live and breath computers and the philosophy of technology. In that sense, free software is one of the most important things to them, and hence they'll argue that it has a higher priority than most things (Stallman in particular). That's what THEY think is important - doesn't mean it actually is for most people. Who says they're right? Stallman is a borderline Asperger's sufferer, of course he'll be fixated on this. You can listen to what he has to say, but following him without thinking things through is bloody dangerous and foolhardy.
But they think it's the most important thing in the world because it's their primary interest in life. That's all it is.
The problem with your example is that it's a very unique edge case. For the general population, such a benefit would be lost on them and they'd never know how to fix it short of replacing the card (if feasible).
Linux might have more freedom, but for most people they won't have much of a use for it, and so it doesn't provide enough of a compelling argument to use instead of something established, well-known and with a wealth of support like Windows or OS X.
I just hope Raymond and Stallman also plant their own crops, cook their own food and never eat out. Otherwise their nutrition and effectively their health is in the hands of another party, which likely doesn't provide the exact recipe for the preparation of said food.
Or is software a topic special enough to them that this hypocrisy with consuming closed-source food is OK?
Funny thing is, I don't actually like Steam anymore. I've written a post which explained why I don't use it anymore and why I'm worried about the increasing reliance publishers are having with it. but I'm surprised Stallman is not pushing entirely against it completely. I would have thought he'd at least grant some leeway with playing proprietary games as opposed to linking full access to your software to a DRM platform.
As for harmful effects of closed source software in general, I think most people on the planet who rely on such software are doing just fine. It's really not that big a deal - if it were it wouldn't be so hard to convince non-nerds why free software is supposedly so important; for most people issue with closed-source software are at best hypothetical, and will likely only ever be that.
It removes the password completely. There are some protections in place though for accounts without a password (e.g. by default, you can't remote desktop into a Windows machine if the target user account lacks a password - if necessary this can be changed via a group policy setting on the target machine).
I'm slowly (very slowly) progressing from being a regular gamer to being a very, very light gamer. In two years time I expect to become a father and so won't have much time for gaming anyway, plus I kinda want to create and build things as opposed to just playing games as a hobby.
Anyone who works as a booth babe and doesn't like being stared at, probably should find another line of work. Kinda goes with the territory (particularly with the stuff they wear often).
At least Windows has somewhat human-friendly documentation (even if it's often useless). Linux has man pages clearly written by developers which very often don't even come with examples. I find myself relying on the Internet to solve both Windows and Linux issues since the supplied documentation tends to be lacking for both.
Well with Windows 7:
Start menu/orb -> Click the user picture at the top of the menu -> Click "Remove your password"
If your setup is different then let me know and I'll tell you what the option is. If it's an edge case I'm prepared to accept its as requiring the CMD but it'd have to be quite unusual.
And yes, activation is a bitch. I personally use a little tool someone developed which permanently activates any version of Vista/7. Not particularly legit but it has got me out of an issue with a legitimately activate machine deactivating itself at some point and me not wanting to deal with Microsoft.
Look, I don't HATE Linux. I've just spent many years trying to convert and falling back to Windows because of issues with application quality and availability, as well as an understanding that by using Linux I'm voluntarily committing myself to being part of a minority of computer users and hence dealing with the resulting lack of support and issues that Windows users simply don't have to worry about (e.g. will this piece of hardware work completely in Linux? will this .doc file I must be able to read properly work with OpenOffice/LibreOffice?). I don't want to deal with those kinds of issues anymore, so I deal with Windows issues instead because I grew up with it enough to know all the kinks. That's my story. :)
Steam is one of the worst forms of DRM out there, and yet it's still widely accepted for some reason. Having access to all of your games tied to a single account seems extremely risky to me - all of your eggs in one basket as it were. If your account is compromised/disabled for any reason, Valve servers/database have issues, a multitude of potential what-ifs resulting from trusting a single vendor for the keys for all your gaming just doesn't sit well with me, and believe me I've tried living Steam for YEARS, but the nagging feeling of not being able to have direct (executable) access to my games just hasn't disappeared and instead actually got worse.
I'm now a big fan of GOG since they have full installers you can download and backup to an external HDD in my case, so that the control remains entirely within your hands and nothing that happens with Valve or even your GOG account will prevent you from playing said games now or in the future. Plus they have many more extras such as soundtracks, avatars, wallpapers and art for a lot of games which often cost more to obtain in Steam if it's even available anyway. It's even got newish games like Alan Wake, so the "Good Old Games" title is gone for a reason.
My biggest worry is that if Steam in Linux is successful, we'll have more games come to Linux but are tied exclusively to Steam. There are too many Windows games which require Steam now as it's assumed anyone who games on the PC doesn't have a problem with it. For people like me who are brain damaged and cannot shake the issue of network-authenticated DRM, it's just going to get worse. It's also rather hard to have an opinion of which you're in the minority. Maybe I should just give up gaming entirely and find a healthier hobby.
It's simple than that for me. I don't like smooth scrolling because it feels LAGGY. It's the same reason why I don't like mouse smoothing in games and disable vertical sync in (most) games - input lag royally pisses me off, and the reaction of pressing/clicking/rolling down and having a brief delay between when you performed the action and when it actually finishes on the screen, makes smooth scrolling too annoying for me to use.
Agree with the AC. This is what I get too on Windows 7. There's a possibility that the page launcher looks dodgy in other operating systems or that an extension is interfering. But hey, it's human nature to bash rather than understand why something is not working like you'd expect it to, and geeks aren't immune from
Ha! You think I've only used Windows? Your premise seems to suggest that anyone who's used Linux would never willingly go back to Linux. There are plenty of people who've tried Linux and found it not to their liking. I'm one of them.
A lot of your complaints are trivial and show ignorance on how to do something rather than a flaw with Windows itself. Not knowing how to do something doesn't mean the underlying platform is rubbish, it just means you don't know (e.g. "I don't find having to go to a command line to enable it to boot without a password nice" -> easy enough to do in XP through to 7 the GUI). You have a mental blocker than prevents you from seeing Windows fairly compared to Linux. Perhaps you're more attuned to Linux, that's fine. But I can provide enough complains about Linux (which you'd disagree with) that prevent me from being productive enough to spend most of my time with it compared to Windows, so the issue of OS flamewars and an emotional connection to an OS is pointless because it results in a closed-minded view.
Serious. I've used Linux. It just doesn't offer much benefit since you're treated like a fucking third-class user at best in software and hardware land.
It's as if people here are completely disconnected from the reality that a lot of people on a more reasonable site like ArsTechnica are and can't comprehend that something like Windows 7 is a very nice OS.
Hasn't the history of tablets taught you nothing? It's precisely the use of traditional operating systems grafted onto tablets which are the prime reason for their lackluster performance... at least until the iPad with a tablet-oriented interface.
Point being, the "playskool" interface makes perfect sense on a touch-based device. There's a reason most people believe Windows 8 has a much higher chance of success on tablets instead of on the desktop.
How the heck do you get that kind of support? I'm guessing you're not just a regular folk and instead have some kind of development partnership with nVidia?
A lot of people are buying the Pi to run XBMC. Since it can support 1080p flawlessly and the Via APC cannot, well... for many people the choice is obvious.
With any luck, the (relatively) open nature of the Pi and increasing size of the community will make it a more interesting option than competing boards, which is the reason why the Arduinos are still very popular despite being outclassed hardware-wise by other boards.
One could always argue that Windows 8 is a real-world testbed for Microsoft to experiment with and gauge opinion as to what works and what doesn't, so that Windows 9 refined the good and ditches the bad. Kinda like they did with Vista and then Windows 7.
Of course, to do this people have to be suckered into using Windows 8 and Microsoft runs the risk of pissing off a great many people. Plus those who paid money for Windows 8 won't like being thought of as guinea-pigs.