Windows 8

[TheMightyEthan]

I honestly don't understand the question. Why shouldn't people buy the cheaper version? Why should I care which version Microsoft says I'm "supposed" to buy as long as I'm buying one and I'm not using it in a business?

[deanb]

I think Fliying Gerbil may be asking why some of us think we should be entitled to get the cheaper OEM version when average joe is picking up the £100 copy from PC World. And I think the answer pretty much is that average joe is shopping at PC World. And also that there's pretty much no reason not to get the OEM version given there's rarely a point where you'd actually need to buy a copy of Windows at retail. For most folks they'll be upgrading (or should be), and everyone else is usually building a PC, thus OEM copy. Only times non-HP/Dell/Vaio guy should be speding cash on Windows. It's exceedingly rare, if ever, you'd buy a laptop or something that doesn't come with an OS on it.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I'm not saying anyone in their right mind wouldn't want to buy cheapest version, I just don't understand why the public had access to the OEM version to begin with. Building your own PC doesn't qualify you as an OEM, you are still a retail customer of MS if you're not building the PC you're installing the OS on with the purpose of retailing it. The version in PC World was the version the public was supposed to buy whether building a PC or upgrading the OS on an old PC.

 

It seems pretty much along the lines of 'grey imports' which while not illegal, means you're jumping through hoops to get something you're not really supposed to have.

 

Anyway, I did say I was going to leave it so I hope this is a bit clearer as I'm going to bed.

[fuchikoma]

Actually I think it's a good question... I've worked in the IT industry since the late 90s and I still don't know why you could commonly buy OEM versions, other than "there were plenty to go around" and "obviously the stores that sold them to me didn't care about the 'Only for distribution with a new PC' label on them."

 

I guess there was never very strict enforcement of OEM copy sales. Of course it's obvious why someone would buy them, since if you don't need support, a box, or sometimes a manual, OEM copies of all sorts of PC parts are just as good as retail versions.

[TheMightyEthan]

Ah okay, I understand now. I've never had to jump through hoops to get an OEM version though, I've just bought them from the same online stores I buy my computer parts. I just went to Amazon and checked and if you search for "Windows 7" the first result is the OEM one, so it's not like they're hard to find.

[deanb]

All you had to do to get the OEM copy is buy it with PC parts. Main reason "general public" had access is because you can't really split shops into "shops that only sell to public" and "shops that only sell to businesses". And there's also those of us that build PCs on a freelance basis. And as I said I think MS clicked that the OEM one makes most sense. Mac users are it for people that don't build their PCs and don't have a version of windows to upgrade from.

 

Course I ain't bought a Windows OS for personal use for years. Woot for MSDNAA.

[TheMightyEthan]

Changing the model is a good thing. It doesn't make any sense why if I build a computer for my cousin and he pays me for it I'm allowed to use the OEM version, but if I build the exact same one for myself I'm suddenly supposed to use the retail one.

[deanb]

http://log.nadim.cc/?p=78

 

This feature may get yanked, but given that it's in the RTM seems highly unlikely, but MS collects data on every program you install so as to verify it as safe or not. Which would for example mean MS could compile a nice list of everyone with say..uTorrent installed or, as the example in the article, Tor network and so on so forth. Or even as mundane as folks running LibreOffice and Chrome.

[fuchikoma]

Or hypothetically disallow certain tools, like hacking utilities or keygens?

 

Actually, doesn't Android have something similar too? Or does it just receive a blacklist from Google and remove apps based on that?

 

Either way, they pretty much lost me at "log in with your online account," though I'd assume there's a way to bypass that... Frankly I've pretty much only heard bad things about Win8. It sounds disastrous, and based on my experience with the preview, it doesn't seem like an exaggeration.

[deanb]

Android does nothing like this. By default it blocks non-market apps then points you to a setting to disable this behaviour. The new OSX has gatekeeper which blocks instillation of non mac store apps and tells you to delete them. Microsoft could do it those ways and retain similar level of safety and scare tactics, there's no need to send data on every program you install beyond misguided market research plans.

[fuchikoma]

This sounds like a bit more than that?

[TheMightyEthan]

Right, that's what dean meant: Microsoft's doing more monitoring than can really be justified, when all they would need to do is what other companies are doing.

[deanb]

Play market has had the ability to remotely install and remove for a while. It's my preferred method of install. That's not what MS is doing, they're tracking installs of what you put on. And in a somewhat insecure way too.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Right, that's what dean meant: Microsoft's doing more monitoring than can really be justified, when all they would need to do is what other companies are doing.

 

What do you mean more than can be justified? They don't appear to be storing the data. All that is, is checking what you download to another list, and then giving you a warning if they think it might be harmful. When you install Windows 8, you can turn it off before you even boot into it.

[TheMightyEthan]

I was just trying to help fuchi understand dean's point, not make one of my own. I have no idea what the feature does or does not do in actuality, having never used Windows 8 or looked in to any of this.

[fuchikoma]

What I'm saying is I wonder how the Android Market must be doing it... either they're sending a blacklist to devices to tell them to remove things, or querying devices to see what's on them and telling them to remove content, or keeping a list of what's installed on everyone's device in the first place. If you read the article I linked, this isn't a convenience feature to allow users to remotely install - it's a backdoor allowing Google to remove potentially harmful apps from devices.

[deanb]

It's built into the Play market.

"After the researcher voluntarily removed these applications from Android Market, we decided, per the Android Market Terms of Service, to exercise our remote application removal feature on the remaining installed copies to complete the cleanup,"

 

It's not an Android thing, the Android thing by default not allowing sideloading of any apps, there's no blacklists or whitelists. However should I install something via the Play market, they yes it can be remotely installed and uninstalled either by me, or as shown here, by Google. It's one of the features of the Play store.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Is that also built into the Windows Marketplace apps like it's built into iOS and Android?

[deanb]

I don't know. I don't even know if it's built into iOS, afaik OTA stuff is still fledgling on iOS.

[deanb]

www.neowin.net/news/the-new-microsoft-brand-family-at-a-glance

 

A look at the new logos. Tbh I'm not a fan. I like the old swishy stuff.

[TheFlyingGerbil]

I prefer the newer simplified styles. They look a lot cleaner.

[TheMightyEthan]

It might have something to do with that grey background they're on, but I don't like them, they're too plain.

 

*Edit* - I think I would like them more if the text weren't the same color as they "icon" part. It just makes them look too monotone.

Edited August 27, 2012 by TheMightyEthan

[deanb]

One man's clean is another man's dull and boring. Old ones had something to them, were a bit mire colourful and vibrant. They had motion to them, flowed.

[fuchikoma]

So they set them in monotone and crushed any shading flat... It does seem consistent with the switch from Aero to Metro, but the result looks strictly utilitarian. It'll be cheaper to print, but aesthetics seem to be an afterthought.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

but aesthetics seem to be an afterthought.

 

Hahahah, this is modern MS we're talking. I think some would complain that aesthetics is all they think about.

 

Anyways, I like the clean look and the fact that the icons are the same color as the text. The icons still look distinct enough to see on their own while at the same time the text is no longer gaudy. Compare the 360 logo for an example of terrible looking text combined with an icon. That one in particular is a huge improvement.

 

I would argue that these have much of a flow to them. One thing you have to keep in mind is that they're built for the modern environment, not Windows 7, and they look much better in their natural habitat. Which is why they've redesigned all of their sites.