And I thought they were going to pay me for downgrading from Windows 7. Lets face it, windows8 is just about tablets and phones and not primary built for desktops / workstations. I have yet to see any other install than the one my company tired and disapproved in the IT department...
- Status
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
Indignant skeptic, when all software is interoperable we can dispense with hypothetical arguments, but seeing as it isn't then Windows will and should continue as the dominant OS. People and companies have been acquiring software at a vast cost for decades, the OS is just a means to an end with the end being to run the software. Windows allows me to run almost any software, hell I can even run Android Apps. When Linux can run MS Office and all your games without hiccups then maybe it will get somewhere, but pushing an OS with no software to run on it defeats the object of having the OS in the first place.
Vladislaus
Distinguished
- Jul 29, 2010
- 1,290
- 0
- 19,280
To my knowledge Windows 8 don't have a Retail version. We have the OEM, the upgrade (that doesn't state anywhere on the box that it's an upgrade) and the pro pack (update from Windows 8 to Windows 8 Pro)
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
SpadeM, you can go from 8 to 8.1 for free, 8 Pro to 8.1 Pro for free - this is not rocket science
Duckhunt
Honorable
- Sep 22, 2012
- 339
- 0
- 10,810
Though the future is mixed. If large businesses start to take up alternatives to MS Office. I can see Ms in big trouble. The problem was that windows was asleep for so long. The windows phones need to be priced better to get a bigger slice. I particularly think that windows needs something that the other OS offerings do not offer. You can't tell Microsoft that. They know best and it is not forcing folk to use something they don't like. I hate it that everyone can see what I am using. This obvious screen grid may have efficiency but anyone passing by can see all the apps i have up. No one seems to think this. Are they retarded?
Belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,545
- 2
- 22,795
What is amazing... is that in the past, Windows Home Edition Upgrades were $100... so, now its $120? People having NOT been buying this POS product before... so raising the price will prove its value?! Bwahahahahaha
Windows 8, 9, whatever they'll call it... Anything "newer" than 7 is not worth $5 to install.
Linux makes more sense to use than Windows 8. (This is a response to a poster)
Thanks to Win8, I've started using the free LinuxMint. Its faster than Win8 in booting, and uses even less memory and CPU resources.... and it works like a Windows type OS, not the full-screen baby crap.
Windows 8, 9, whatever they'll call it... Anything "newer" than 7 is not worth $5 to install.
Linux makes more sense to use than Windows 8. (This is a response to a poster)
Thanks to Win8, I've started using the free LinuxMint. Its faster than Win8 in booting, and uses even less memory and CPU resources.... and it works like a Windows type OS, not the full-screen baby crap.
Sangeet Khatri
Honorable
- May 26, 2013
- 2,640
- 1
- 13,460
Thanks to Windows 8. When I knew a new OS is out, I wanted to upgrade, but I did not like it very much. So I switched to Linux and I am really happy with it.
Of course with Linux you need to be a software geek. I mean you do not need to be like that, but being a software geek helps to change some things.
As for ease of use. Linux is way more easier to use than Windows. It is just that people have been using Windows from years so they find Linux hard to use just because they are very familiar with Windows.
But give a child a Linux PC vs Windows PC and I am pretty sure that they will find Linux easier to use. I mean just try Linux Mint, Lubuntu, Xubuntu.
Most people that complain about Linux being hard to use haven't even tries Linux in the first place or they have accidently tried not so much beginner friendly distros like Arch, Debian, Puppy Linux (that one is a pain is the.. you know backside.., it was my first Linux distro).
For a new user, I recommend Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Lubuntu (if they are on old hardware).
I would recommend Linux Mint the most because it is the easiest to use.
When I started linux, I used everything point and click with mouse and all. But now I do most of my work in Terminal because it is faster than anything. To install a software I just have to do "sudo apt-get install gimp" if I want to install gimp. To uninstall it, I just have to type in "sudo apt-get autoremove gimp". It is as simple as that.
To check all the network traffic, I just have to do "sudo nethogs wlan0" and even I download things using Terminal because everything is much faster with terminal. To download from say http://example.com/download-link-here.zip all I have to do is "aria2c -x4 http://example.com/download-link-here.zip" and it downloads it all.
Seriously Linux gives you the most control over any other OS. But let it be Windows users would never understand. When I used Windows, I did not understand these things, so it is quite understandable, but really, for me Linux is way better than Windows. I can do anything with it. Seriously, anything I want to do unlike in Windows, you can just do what Microsoft wants you to.
All the benefits like Linux being free, no virus, security, lightweight, faster and everything aside. These are just things to attract Windows users to Linux but the real fun of using Linux is way different than what is advertised. Only a Linux user would understand that. No one else knows that feeling, that experience. No Windows user can ever know that without using Linux.
Of course with Linux you need to be a software geek. I mean you do not need to be like that, but being a software geek helps to change some things.
As for ease of use. Linux is way more easier to use than Windows. It is just that people have been using Windows from years so they find Linux hard to use just because they are very familiar with Windows.
But give a child a Linux PC vs Windows PC and I am pretty sure that they will find Linux easier to use. I mean just try Linux Mint, Lubuntu, Xubuntu.
Most people that complain about Linux being hard to use haven't even tries Linux in the first place or they have accidently tried not so much beginner friendly distros like Arch, Debian, Puppy Linux (that one is a pain is the.. you know backside.., it was my first Linux distro).
For a new user, I recommend Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Lubuntu (if they are on old hardware).
I would recommend Linux Mint the most because it is the easiest to use.
When I started linux, I used everything point and click with mouse and all. But now I do most of my work in Terminal because it is faster than anything. To install a software I just have to do "sudo apt-get install gimp" if I want to install gimp. To uninstall it, I just have to type in "sudo apt-get autoremove gimp". It is as simple as that.
To check all the network traffic, I just have to do "sudo nethogs wlan0" and even I download things using Terminal because everything is much faster with terminal. To download from say http://example.com/download-link-here.zip all I have to do is "aria2c -x4 http://example.com/download-link-here.zip" and it downloads it all.
Seriously Linux gives you the most control over any other OS. But let it be Windows users would never understand. When I used Windows, I did not understand these things, so it is quite understandable, but really, for me Linux is way better than Windows. I can do anything with it. Seriously, anything I want to do unlike in Windows, you can just do what Microsoft wants you to.
All the benefits like Linux being free, no virus, security, lightweight, faster and everything aside. These are just things to attract Windows users to Linux but the real fun of using Linux is way different than what is advertised. Only a Linux user would understand that. No one else knows that feeling, that experience. No Windows user can ever know that without using Linux.
OdinShortbeard
Honorable
- Sep 26, 2013
- 2
- 0
- 10,510
@Comment 1 - IT-guru-luke
Nothing is immune to computer viruses, not even linux. Your comment reminds me of an Mac vs PC advert that Apple used to run where they claimed Macs are immune to viruses, but low and behold, 2 years later, people actually started to bother making Mac viruses. Maybe I should sue Apple for false advertising.
So the point is, Linux is only "immune" to viruses because not many people make viruses for it in the first place. The number one goal of anyone who makes a virus, is to infect as many systems as they can, which of course would be Windows PCs since there is over 1 billion of those and not very, very little of either Macs or Linux-based PCs.
Now if you really want to bring linux servers into the mix..... good luck, those are about as secure as a cracked nut, most companies (like the one you speak of) seem to think Linux is immune to security threats, so don't bother installing much (if any) security software. It is after all, why so many Linux servers get hacked, or get used to distribute viruses to visitors by hackers.
Nothing is immune to computer viruses, not even linux. Your comment reminds me of an Mac vs PC advert that Apple used to run where they claimed Macs are immune to viruses, but low and behold, 2 years later, people actually started to bother making Mac viruses. Maybe I should sue Apple for false advertising.
So the point is, Linux is only "immune" to viruses because not many people make viruses for it in the first place. The number one goal of anyone who makes a virus, is to infect as many systems as they can, which of course would be Windows PCs since there is over 1 billion of those and not very, very little of either Macs or Linux-based PCs.
Now if you really want to bring linux servers into the mix..... good luck, those are about as secure as a cracked nut, most companies (like the one you speak of) seem to think Linux is immune to security threats, so don't bother installing much (if any) security software. It is after all, why so many Linux servers get hacked, or get used to distribute viruses to visitors by hackers.
OdinShortbeard
Honorable
- Sep 26, 2013
- 2
- 0
- 10,510
@Comment 1 - IT-guru-luke
Nothing is immune to computer viruses, not even linux. Your comment reminds me of an Mac vs PC advert that Apple used to run where they claimed Macs are immune to viruses, but low and behold, 2 years later, people actually started to bother making Mac viruses. Maybe I should sue Apple for false advertising.
So the point is, Linux is only "immune" to viruses because not many people make viruses for it in the first place. The number one goal of anyone who makes a virus, is to infect as many systems as they can, which of course would be Windows PCs since there is over 1 billion of those and not very, very little of either Macs or Linux-based PCs.
Now if you really want to bring linux servers into the mix..... good luck, those are about as secure as a cracked nut, most companies (like the one you speak of) seem to think Linux is immune to security threats, so don't bother installing much (if any) security software. It is after all, why so many Linux servers get hacked, or get used to distribute viruses to visitors by hackers.
Nothing is immune to computer viruses, not even linux. Your comment reminds me of an Mac vs PC advert that Apple used to run where they claimed Macs are immune to viruses, but low and behold, 2 years later, people actually started to bother making Mac viruses. Maybe I should sue Apple for false advertising.
So the point is, Linux is only "immune" to viruses because not many people make viruses for it in the first place. The number one goal of anyone who makes a virus, is to infect as many systems as they can, which of course would be Windows PCs since there is over 1 billion of those and not very, very little of either Macs or Linux-based PCs.
Now if you really want to bring linux servers into the mix..... good luck, those are about as secure as a cracked nut, most companies (like the one you speak of) seem to think Linux is immune to security threats, so don't bother installing much (if any) security software. It is after all, why so many Linux servers get hacked, or get used to distribute viruses to visitors by hackers.
Fredrik Aldhagen
Honorable
- Jul 16, 2013
- 70
- 0
- 10,630
Well, first of all, Linux is more or less immune to drive-by-downloads (because anything downloaded will have its executable bit OFF) Now, assuming a virus does get in the system, its damages will be limited to the user's home folder, it will not be able to damage the operating system or other software on the machine, or other users home folders, unless the user deliberately gives it superuser privileges. As for the product IT-guru-luke is promoting, from the sound of it, it runs Windows software in a virtual machine under Linux. Provided it is properly designed it should be 100% virusproof (in the sense that any damage done is limited to the VM itself) Such VMs are in fact used to research actual viruses.
As for servers, any server running out-of-date security software is insecure regardless of it running Windows or Linux.
Also, as that is IT-guru-luke's only comment, I'm gonna assume it's a spam account...
- May 18, 2007
- 23,878
- 5,317
- 108,890
Yeah... right.
Windows has the Execute Disable bit support too. That does not prevent virus writers to find ways to get around that and I'm sure if someone searches deep enough, they will find opportunities to do the same on Linux or any other OS. It is mainly a matter of motivation.
Linux is not immune to privilege escalation attacks either; hundreds of ways to achieve those have been found in the past by using system services and tools that require root access to do some legitimate non-root stuff, hundreds more will likely be found in the future. Just as with XD, it is largely a matter of motivation.
Linux is mostly used on servers so most of the research and exploit focus in the past has been on server-oriented aspects of the thing. If enough people used it on the desktop to attract researchers and virus writers, I bet tons of new security holes would be found.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question ARRGGGH!!!! Looking for help finding a replacement screw.
- Started by Franknj229
- Replies: 15
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram