Windows 8 may drive me to Linux

I've been using the internet extensively for more than a decade and I've never gotten hit by a virus that actively destroys data. Most just want to force ads on you these days. In contrast, I've lost all of the data on my hard drive to hard drive failures about 4 different times. To avoid data loss, you need to buy another hard drive and back up regularly. Viruses are really the least of your worries when it comes to data loss, and if avoiding Windows provides you with a false sense of security on the issue, that's not a good thing.

Have you never come across the fake anti-virus that asks you for money to fix the problem? I know several people that had this and I ran Malware Bytes in safe mode to remove it.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=130629
 
No, not physically but it can do a good job of erasing data and killing it stone dead. I have Avast on Linux Mint 12 KDE, Kubuntu 11.10, Zorin OS 5 and Ubuntu 11.10 but I can honestly say that I have never even had a sniff of a virus. It is supposedly possible to get a virus by running a .exe file under Wine but I've never seen that either. I will agree that Unity is not everyones cup of tea but I await the release of 12.04 next month.

I'm thinking of trying wine. It seems like a virus would infect the wine install only but I don't know if that's true.
 
At worst, it could destroy your home folder. It would need root access to destroy anything else, which wine programs can't even ask for. I seriously doubt that it could even get out of the .wine folder, but I'm talking out of my ass there. I just don't think most hackers would make it a priority to find out how to destroy the entire home folder should they find themselves in a wine environment anyway.
 
I have an extra drive so I'm going to give it a try. The only essential windows program I have is photoshop 7. I can switch to Gimp and most everything else will run on wine. Cepstral is the best voice for windows but linux has many voices that are much better than Cepstral!
 
I'm sorry if I came off as a bit of an ass. It's fine to use whatever OS suits your needs. I've just personally found that Linux isn't good for me, and I've always found myself coming back to Windows. For one thing, I've often found the various desktop systems that come with it to be buggy (the actually underlying kernel is, of course, famous for its stability). Also, I often play games, and where they even work with Wine, they're usually buggy and/or difficult to install appropriately.
 
At worst, it could destroy your home folder. It would need root access to destroy anything else, which wine programs can't even ask for. I seriously doubt that it could even get out of the .wine folder, but I'm talking out of my ass there. I just don't think most hackers would make it a priority to find out how to destroy the entire home folder should they find themselves in a wine environment anyway.

You are right to say that Wine installs .exe files into ~/.wine so the damage is limited to the home directory.
 
You are right to say that Wine installs .exe files into ~/.wine so the damage is limited to the home directory.

Well, the damage from any program launched in linux without root is limited to the home folder (I suppose you could launch wine as root, but you really deserve what you get if you're doing that). Rightfully, wine should run any program so that the ~/.wine folder appears to be the entire system to it. I suppose that anything is possible, though, and that a cleverly enough written app could detect that it's in a wine environment, and from there it might be able to creep up to the home folder and destroy all of that (and, yes, wipe out everything should you be stupid enough to be running the system in root mode, which should never be the case).

However, you would have to be very unlucky indeed to encounter a virus hacker dedicated enough to go through all of these steps to make such a Windows program, and he'd also have to be pretty crazy to hate Linux that much. And, again, I'm talking out of my ass, and all of this may very well not really be possible. Anyway, it's not like you're going to be running your browser through wine, so you're not going to be susceptible to internet viruses anyway.
 
Well, the damage from any program launched in linux without root is limited to the home folder (I suppose you could launch wine as root, but you really deserve what you get if you're doing that). Rightfully, wine should run any program so that the ~/.wine folder appears to be the entire system to it. I suppose that anything is possible, though, and that a cleverly enough written app could detect that it's in a wine environment, and from there it might be able to creep up to the home folder and destroy all of that (and, yes, wipe out everything should you be stupid enough to be running the system in root mode, which should never be the case).

However, you would have to be very unlucky indeed to encounter a virus hacker dedicated enough to go through all of these steps to make such a Windows program, and he'd also have to be pretty crazy to hate Linux that much. And, again, I'm talking out of my ass, and all of this may very well not really be possible. Anyway, it's not like you're going to be running your browser through wine, so you're not going to be susceptible to internet viruses anyway.

For a while Chrome was not available as a native app on Linux, the Linux equivalent was Chromium which was Wine based. Google have also stopped development of Picasa for reasons best known to themselves.
 
For a while Chrome was not available as a native app on Linux, the Linux equivalent was Chromium which was Wine based. Google have also stopped development of Picasa for reasons best known to themselves.

Chrome took a long time to come to Linux, true. Chromium is, of course, the open source base from which Google builds Chrome, so it can be compiled for any platform you want.
 
I need windscreens for my pics devices. After dual booting windshields and linux for several years i ultimately have the best of both worlds. I use XP on both of my computers and win 7 on my laptop pc. I use lupu 525 on a flash push for all of my internet marketer profession. now is the first spell I've been internet marketer with windoze in a season....running my spouse's laptop at this time. With linux I can surf any engine and never difficulty about malware or hackers. Linux acting on a flash pressure is the securest and swiftest using components in all of computerdom...is that a be aware?
 
Why load BETA versions of an OS then complain publicly about them rather than send remarks to Microsoft for improvements?
 
The same people Ubuntu was aiming at when they made Unity. Only Microsoft did it half right, whereas Unity is garbage.

You don't have to use Unity though, you can switch to Gnome Classic very easily. Linux Mint also has Cinnamon which is very promising. I still favour KDE as it is now rock stable and incredibly user friendly and intuitive. I also find myself using Zorin OS 5 more and more, you can set it up to be like Windows XP or Windows 7 in the free edition. I'll bet it is only a matter of time before MS offer a Win 7 option in Win 8, probably when SP1 comes out!
 
Last edited:
If Windows 7 "Simplifies" the PC, What Does Windows 8 Do to It?

By Scott M. Fulton, III / March 16, 2012 2:30 PM



120315%20Windows%208%2011-thumb-610x300-39604.jpg


On the day that Windows 7 was generally released in October 2009, Microsoft announced that it was "simplifying" the PC. It was a long awaited, much appreciated response to nearly three years of wrestling with the sea of sloth that was Windows Vista.
My review of Windows 7 was both notorious and, even in hindsight, correct. I called it "Vista without the crap." For that review, I ran a scientific test which produced this real-world calculation: Windows 7 expedited the Web browsing process for folks who use Web apps and browsers for their full-time work (like myself) by three-and-one-half minutes per hour. That's 385 hours of productivity regained per year, which is enough time for my company Ingenus to produce one book and rake in a nice heap of cash. I suggested to Microsoft that it use the following slogan: "Use Windows 7, Get Six Weeks of Your Life Back."
I look at the Consumer Preview of Windows 8 and I fear I may lose those six weeks again.

All through the Windows 7 promotional tour, Microsoft demonstrated the many ways that the new operating system simplified the PC. Product managers and executives gave the following explanation: They watched the way people work in the real world. They realized these people want to take fewer steps to accomplish the things they do most often. Users don't like to be told what to do, or led into one way of doing things that the designer of the software may prefer. People feel better about their computers when they're not thinking about them as computers - when they can concentrate either on their work or whatever they may be having fun with. The operating system should say hello, welcome, and then get out of the way.
If these things were all true as recently as 2009, what manner of cataclysm upset the balance of the universe so horrifically as to have made black white, and to replaced Windows 7's design philosophy with that of the Windows 8 Consumer Preview? As I run through these examples with you, as an exercise, imagine explaining them to your mother.
The Search for Start

120315%20Windows%208%2006.jpg


Dividing a smartphone's small screen into eight or nine tiled blocks, makes sense and makes the phone easier to control. Using the same logic to divide a larger PC screen into dozens of mosaic blocks, does not do either. Does any Web site you've ever used, work like this? Or to be more specific, any Web site since 1998?
What makes the Windows 7 Start Menu work well (which I said at the time of its release) was its simple, two-column division: things you typically use on the left, things you typically do on the right. I typically open a Network window to see which computers in my office are functional. I open up documents I've been working on recently. And to search for stuff, what could be simpler than simply typing what it is you're searching for?

120315%20Windows%208%2007.jpg


One aspect of Windows 8 design - which was literally explained to me in a positive light using these words - is that you'll learn how to do something once you've discovered it for yourself. It is not obvious from the Windows 8 Start screen that you can still just type something and Windows will search for it. There's no search control that says that. However, this is still how Start works - you type a character, and search begins.
But in everyday work, you shouldn't have to go searching through the entire file system for stuff you did just yesterday. Not everything in life requires search, contrary to whatever Google design philosophy Microsoft has commandeered.
Zones Instead of Buttons

When the Start Button premiered in Windows 95 (to the Rolling Stones singing backup, you may recall), it was with the idea of giving the user one obvious place at all times for beginning any task. The most sensible place to put something that will most always be on the screen, at that time, was the lower left corner of the Desktop.
As you may already know by now, in Windows 8, the Desktop is one of two staging grounds for applications, the other one being the "Metro-style" world where the easier, device-like apps will run. So there is no longer any one single place on the screen that will always, or most always, be visible. How does one get to "Start" if she can't always see it? Microsoft suggests that you might try looking at the keyboard - and indeed, on most PCs made in the last decade, there's a Windows logo button. (Of course, the Windows logo has changed with Windows 8, but that's not too confusing - just uninspired.)

120315%20Windows%208%2015.jpg


With the Consumer Preview, Microsoft addressed this for the first time by adding a zone in the lower left corner that brings up a kind of Start button when you hover the mouse pointer toward that corner (assuming you're one of those old-fashioned folks who still use a mouse).
In the Developer Preview, it was difficult to control the Metro-style apps, the new class that uses the WinRT library. When I asked why Metro apps couldn't share the Taskbar with the other Desktop apps, the response I got was that the Taskbar would not always be on-screen. Why wouldn't it be on-screen all the time? Because sometimes you'd be running a Metro-style app.



Well, so much for that explanation. If you hover the mouse over the Start zone button, or if you hover it in the upper left corner of the Desktop, you'll get what amounts to the taskbar for Metro-style apps. Yes, friends, you are now looking (above) at a Desktop with two Taskbars (which calls to mind the lyrical phrase, "And now for something completely different"). Typically, bringing up a Metro app replaces the entire Desktop with the app, in which case, the Desktop gets miniaturized and changes places with the app you just clicked on.
Why is any of this important? Imagine the following situation: You want to play a song. Sounds simple enough, right? Assume you've made it through to the Desktop, you've opened an Explorer window, and you have a list of your MP3s in front of you. When you double-click on any of these, your Desktop goes away.

120315%20Windows%208%2002.jpg


Within 20 seconds, the Desktop is replaced by this thing (right). It's not a list of the music you own - it's a piece of wallpaper containing some random album covers from music published in the last century. Granted, you'll be listening to your song now, but you'll want to return to your work. This is something the former designers at Microsoft (whom I guess were all sacked) used to know: Sometimes you do other things while you work, and sometimes you do more than one thing at a time.

120315%20Windows%208%2003.jpg


Getting back to your work is a matter of rearranging the screen. First, you click on this wallpaper in order to get the music player controls back. (Ask yourself, on what class of device whose screen is larger than a postage stamp is it absolutely necessary for the music player to consume all the real estate?)

120315%20Windows%208%2004.jpg


Then you grab the top of the wallpaper as though you were about to rip it off of your screen (above), and drag it to one side or the other of your screen. You'd think the Desktop would come back now, but no. Although you've zoned your music player, you now have about 84% completely blank screen. How many of your co-workers do you know who would be freaked out by even a partially blank screen - doesn't that mean something's gone wrong? The next step is for you to fill the remainder of the space with the Desktop.

120315%20Windows%208%2005.jpg


So you point to the upper left corner to bring up the Desktop miniature (above), and click on that. This restores the Desktop to the scary blank space, and now you can continue about your work (below). Now, this is not Windows Media Player we're looking at - although it's offered in the Windows 8 Consumer Preview, it's as a kind of fallback alternative. This Music app, which replaces Media Player as the default, takes up either the rightmost or leftmost 16% (roughly) of the screen. Although the border between the Metro and the Desktop world looks like it includes a handle, in practice, you can only change the app's relative size to 84%, 100%, or zero.

120315%20Windows%208%2008.jpg

120315%20Windows%208%2009.jpg


When you size a Metro app to 84%, it reduces the Desktop space to 16%. For the moment, there is no functional reason to do this. Like in the screenshot above, the Desktop doesn't shrink or partition itself; it just makes itself a big taskbar. In Windows 8, there are quite a few surprisingly detailed procedures for doing things that accomplish nothing whatsoever, this being one of them.

120315%20Windows%208%2011-thumb-400x196-39604.jpg


(This just in: If you happen to own a mouse with one of these programmable page up/page down buttons, pressing it when you're listening to a song in the Music app will bring up this little box in the left corner for about five seconds, whether or not you have the app showing along either side. You won't know this fact unless and until a) you discover it accidentally for yourself, therefore "learning;" or, b) I tell you about it.)



http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2012/03/if-windows-7-simplifies-the-pc.php
 
I probably won't be deploying Windows 8 at my work. On the client side, I tend to skip every other release. People bitch even when their workstation gets a reload, let alone when they get an entirely new OS.

I really like Server 8, though. The new Hyper-V will give VMware a real run for their money.
 
Back
Top