Windows 8 - Looks really awsome

From http://www.winrumors.com/free-softw...oycott-of-windows-8-over-secure-boot-feature/:

 

In the end the market will probably decide. Machines that don't support disabling UEFI will hopefully not sell as well.

 

How To Reset Windows 8 To Factory Settings

 

So I got to see my friend who has got a Win 8 Slate from MS Build.
The Metro UI works well on the touch screen, I found it very easy to learn, seems to make sense.

I can't see how it will work well on the Desktop for anyone but the most basic users (and they might as well use a tablet IMHO).
Metro does not seem to cater for any kind of power user.
Integration with the classic desktop is so weak that Metro gets in the way of using traditional desktop for anything more than occasional use of the traditional desktop.

Cheers, Nick.

 

Unlock Moonrea, a hidden feature of Windows 8, using BluePoison

 

Do you know what I'd also enjoy seeing implemented in Windows 8? A native feature such as this.

Then, it could be edited and/or saved in Paint.

Now, that would be something, wouldn't it?

But, I suppose it's just like tabs in Explorer or even in Microsoft Office... It won't happen.

 

Learn how to use Windows 8 Task Manager as an IT Pro

 

Turned SmartScreen off.

edit: Eh, I'll leave it on. But so far all it has done is annoy me.

 

Even more annoying than IE 9?

 

I wouldn't know - I rarely use IE9.

Right now it's a pain because it's either picking up unknown files or not doing anything. On top of that the feature's a bit buggy and on more than one occasion it's popped up in the background and I haven't realized and i just keep trying to open the application.

 

That's why I dislike Application Reputation. Sure it's more effective, but the amount of false positives could be more than malware, lol.

 

Yeah it's a pain ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ and people won't take it seriously.

Another ridiculously ineffective security measure by Windows - once again relying almost entirely on user interaction.

I don't know how they look at their own statistics showing that users are responsible for infections and then think "Hey, let's give more responsibility to the user."

 

Your only valid complaint is it flagging applications with no reputation, which is exactly what it's supposed to do.

Calling a developer preview "buggy" is like giving a call to Captain Obvious, it's a pre-beta.

 

What it's supposed to do is stupid. That's the point.

 

Do you have a better alternative? Smartscreen filter is effective, sure it gives some FP, but hey... it's still in pre-beta.

 

As Funky said it's not false positives. It's not saying "This file is new/bad" when the file is really good - it's just a popup that says "Hey should I really run this file? We don't recognize it."

It could block literally every malicious file and ask the user what to do and it would still be almost entirely useless because users will always make the wrong decisions.

 

I agree with you on that then, to be honest, I haven't run into that popup yet. Let's hope for MS to come up with a better solution.

 

It's still just nuts to me that they can come up with studies to blame the users for installing malware and then think that this is somehow the proper response.

 

What would you do in their position? Decide for the user? Stop giving options? Implement universal censorship?

Stop dreaming dude.

 

lmao I love how making security decisions suddenly means fascism.

Yes, they should decide for the user or always assume the user will make the wrong decision.

 

They always assume the user will make the wrong decision -- that's why they try their best to give more relevant information about the download the user is going to make, to help the user understand risks and make the right decision.

No, it's impossible for the company to absolutely decide for the user if he can or can't download this or that -- and you know that. Such a measure would never be implemented for two simple reasons: 1. false positives .; 2. would be considered a crime against freedom.

 

They don't assume anything, that's the basis of this. They present the user with a situation "This file is unknown" and ask the user what to do. More information and more choices, things that users do not do well with nor should they be expected to.

No, the do not have to say "You can't download this" but if they're going to start monitoring files they should at least give some definitive answer. Saying "This file is new, still open it?" is very different from "This file is malicious and has been blocked - click here to open it." Yes, it's still a decision and I still don't like it but at the very least it's a more definitive answer.

If they want to do somethign like this they should give definitive answers or nto bother.

 

You are arguing about semantics. And again, you're wrong. They don't put words on the sentence questions out of thin air.

They make studies, and these studies show to them what words and sentences are more effective in alerting consumers.

Basically, they have scientific studies behind their decisions, and you have a common sense of a pedant. Guess what, I think they are right.

 

This is literally nothing to do with semantics. This isn't about sentence structure or some BS I'm saying that asking for a user to make decisions about security is an inherently bad idea - that's based on THEIR research.

Users are responsible (according to MS) for... what... 94% of infections?

So their response is "Let's put more security into the hands of the user." Please tell me how that makes sense.

Even a blacklist will give you a definitive answer and say "This file is malicious so don't open it." All this is saying is that "This file is new, should we open it?" I mean... come on.

I wouldn't call it entirely useless but I'd definitely call it a marketing scheme. On paper it looks fine. So does UAC.

 

I think the word that really defines it for me would be "superfluous." It's fluff. IT doesn't really add much of value but in some fringe situations it may not be useless.