It's more likely that general hand-wavery and sotto voce commands will be the order of the day. We're probably within 10 years of the end of screens of any sort, as long as we can get the neo-Luddites to embrace change instead of fighting it.
While I agree that Vista was slow and sluggish, they made a huge change to the code that made it much more secure. That caused all kinds of issues with devices not working and new drivers needing made (I know you already know this, just typing it anyway). So I can forgive a lot of the issues with Vista because it was a very needed change in the right direction, especially for security. 8 is just a steaming pile of shit that they tried to polish, but they didn't wait until it was hard enough and now it's just smeared all over the place!
How long must I put up with the unholy sound of your gun?
You think? I agree with him. Voice is the future. But I disagree about removing screens. The future I see is in our pocket. Our phones will sync with a bigger display at home and at work. OR the screen will be in our glasses/contacts, similar to what Google is working on now.
I hope he and everyone understands that I'm not against change at all, I actually enjoy it and force it on my users quite often. But if it brings no improvement it's a waste of time and money.
How long must I put up with the unholy sound of your gun?
I think I first installed 12.10 and wasn't happy. Went to 12.04 64bit which was a mistake when trying to get WINE to work, so I ditched that and went to 12.04 32bit and I'm happy.
Not sure if I like Unity though. A bit sluggish at times.
Yeah, by "losing screens" I meant that either glasses or active contact lenses will create the appearance of screens where there are none. You'll be able to use any piece of card or paper as a touch device, for example, with the "display" being mapped onto it in real-time.
No, XP was released in late 2001, Vista in early 2007. That's just over 5 years.
Ken: Vista was a funny one. It involved a lot of new features, but the GUI on top was very familiar. Unfortunately, several areas of its design were poor, plus it was released before either it or the drivers were ready. Result: an annoying, slow and buggy OS. Windows 7 proved that if you took the good foundations, fixed the design flaws and added in more mature drivers, you could end up with a decent, stable, and pleasant OS.
That's my issue with Windows 8. It's another Vista in that there's a lot of good foundation stuff, but just too many rough edges that are likely to rile and annoy people.
I agree with you about Vista and 7. I don't think I agree about 8. I see 8 as mostly cosmetic. What is really different underneath? I /think/ it's 7 underneath with a new (metro) GUI on it. They haven't, as far as I know, improved security (7 was actually very good already). They did make it boot and shut down faster, and added in that wipe/reset feature, but how many times are you going to actually use that over the life of the OS? One or 2? The drivers from 7 and Vista continue to work with 8, so I know that hasn't changed. So I guess I'd like to know what really has changed underneath, and I suppose I could Google it, but I'd prefer Patch or Rendle to come tell me all these fantastic things while calling me stupid and stubborn!
How long must I put up with the unholy sound of your gun?
The UEFI + signed OS stuff is new, the signed apps thing (the ability to do it, it's only enforced in certain versions (so far)) and DirectX 11.1 will be Win8+ only.
So yeah, all good if you like locked-down closed systems for cheaper than Apple do them.
bastard by name
