Steven W, 2013-09-08 21:58 »
There seems to be a tendency of Windows/Microsoft supporters to say that the only problem that people who don't like Windows 8 is its PlaySkool interface. There are many who state that those who don't like the Metro UI simply refuse to embrace change. While I agree that Metro is a turd for a desktop or laptop computer, it could have a place on tablets and other similar devices. That said, I also believe that Metro being forced on all users is symptomatic of a much larger view at Microsoft of all Windows users. You can see this way of thinking start around the advent of Windows ME and XP. There seems to be a three-pronged approach to this view:
1. Take power away from end-users
2. Force end-users to do what we think they must do to have "security".
3. Dumb-it-down, dumb-it-down, dumb-it-down.
In category 1, you have "tools" like System File Protection that prevent you from deleting what MS considers vital system files. This idea got expanded in Vista and 7 where, even as the "Administrator" you may or may not be able to delete files/folders even after taking "ownership". You can also see TrustedInstaller in 7 is a user! *facepalm* This, in and of itself, results in even more inabilities to delete files and folders.
The most prevalent example I can think of in category 2 is XP's Security Center. Run our firewall or someone else's or get endless warnings. Run Anti-virus software or get endless warnings. Get our patches or get endless warnings. Some credit must be given because the warnings can at least be shut off. You all probably know that by default windows XP forces you to set up a user account and attempts to force you to use that instead of the Administrator account, although easily defeated, it is another good example. UAC (I've affectionately dubbed "dumbass's Sudo") is one of the lamest examples of security-as-afterthought from MS. As proven by various Malware, UAC is nothing short of a huge joke. TrustedInstaller-as-user also fit's nicely into this category.
The Metro interface is the best example of category 3 that I can think of. As stated above, it has its place, but a desktop or laptop isn't it. I say the supporters of it are too lazy to learn something other than the interface that they use to send useless messages to their friends and family from cellphones. It's simply inappropriate for a mouse and keyboard. With some reservation, I'm going to put System Restore in this category too. I will give some credit here because it is easily disabled. While it may have other uses, I believe that it was intended to "fix" issues caused by poorly-written software, end-user errors, et cetra. The thing, when used to perform a restore, does little more than restore the registry and perhaps some system files to a previous state. It does not "fix" the underlying cause of the issue. I'll admit I've had others use it when trying to help with issues over the phone and most of the time it "worked", but I've only used it when the user needing assistance either didn't understand certain things, such as how to boot in safe-mode, boot to a command prompt, how to use a Linux distro's boot CD, et cetra or if the user needed access to the PC quickly. I do realize System Restore can be used for other purposes, but I don't believe that those were its main purpose. You can see that practically everything in categories 1 and 2 fit in here as well.
I'd like to think that I've made the case that the Metro UI isn't the only problem people have with the direction that Microsoft has decided to take Windows in. Every release takes more and more power away from users. Those of us who've bothered to learn about caring for and maintaining Windows are absolutely pissed off about that control being taken away. The security-as-an-afterthought approach does not work. If Microsoft want's a more secure OS, they'll have to build one from the ground up or start with a BSD/Linux/some other base and build on top of it. Don't get me wrong, I think it's possible to have a relatively secure installation if set up and connected to the internet properly and I actually like Windows up to and including XP, but Microsoft's attempts to coddle every end-user is one of the factors ruining Windows.
There seems to be a tendency of Windows/Microsoft supporters to say that the only problem that people who don't like Windows 8 is its PlaySkool interface. There are many who state that those who don't like the Metro UI simply refuse to embrace change. While I agree that Metro is a turd for a desktop or laptop computer, it could have a place on tablets and other similar devices. That said, I also believe that Metro being forced on all users is symptomatic of a much larger view at Microsoft of all Windows users. You can see this way of thinking start around the advent of Windows ME and XP. There seems to be a three-pronged approach to this view:
1. Take power away from end-users
2. Force end-users to do what we think they must do to have "security".
3. Dumb-it-down, dumb-it-down, dumb-it-down.
In category 1, you have "tools" like System File Protection that prevent you from deleting what MS considers vital system files. This idea got expanded in Vista and 7 where, even as the "Administrator" you may or may not be able to delete files/folders even after taking "ownership". You can also see TrustedInstaller in 7 is a user! *facepalm* This, in and of itself, results in even more inabilities to delete files and folders.
The most prevalent example I can think of in category 2 is XP's Security Center. Run our firewall or someone else's or get endless warnings. Run Anti-virus software or get endless warnings. Get our patches or get endless warnings. Some credit must be given because the warnings can at least be shut off. You all probably know that by default windows XP forces you to set up a user account and attempts to force you to use that instead of the Administrator account, although easily defeated, it is another good example. UAC (I've affectionately dubbed "dumbass's Sudo") is one of the lamest examples of security-as-afterthought from MS. As proven by various Malware, UAC is nothing short of a huge joke. TrustedInstaller-as-user also fit's nicely into this category.
The Metro interface is the best example of category 3 that I can think of. As stated above, it has its place, but a desktop or laptop isn't it. I say the supporters of it are too lazy to learn something other than the interface that they use to send useless messages to their friends and family from cellphones. It's simply inappropriate for a mouse and keyboard. With some reservation, I'm going to put System Restore in this category too. I will give some credit here because it is easily disabled. While it may have other uses, I believe that it was intended to "fix" issues caused by poorly-written software, end-user errors, et cetra. The thing, when used to perform a restore, does little more than restore the registry and perhaps some system files to a previous state. It does not "fix" the underlying cause of the issue. I'll admit I've had others use it when trying to help with issues over the phone and most of the time it "worked", but I've only used it when the user needing assistance either didn't understand certain things, such as how to boot in safe-mode, boot to a command prompt, how to use a Linux distro's boot CD, et cetra or if the user needed access to the PC quickly. I do realize System Restore can be used for other purposes, but I don't believe that those were its main purpose. You can see that practically everything in categories 1 and 2 fit in here as well.
I'd like to think that I've made the case that the Metro UI isn't the only problem people have with the direction that Microsoft has decided to take Windows in. Every release takes more and more power away from users. Those of us who've bothered to learn about caring for and maintaining Windows are absolutely pissed off about that control being taken away. The security-as-an-afterthought approach does not work. If Microsoft want's a more secure OS, they'll have to build one from the ground up or start with a BSD/Linux/some other base and build on top of it. Don't get me wrong, I think it's possible to have a relatively secure installation if set up and connected to the internet properly and I actually like Windows up to and including XP, but Microsoft's attempts to coddle every end-user is one of the factors ruining Windows.