News Valve's Gabe Newell calls Windows 8 a 'catastrophe'

You are comparing with XP. XP does not have User Account Control. Everyone run as full administrator by default... and if you don't... well expect issues with non-enterprise ready software. It's a mess of an OS, and has more security holes than a wood log infested with termites.

It's for a reason Microsoft scrap it and pretty much restarted from scratch. 6 years later.. you have Vista, then Windows 7.

The place I used to work, when I used to work as IT before doing soft. dev. When we switch to Windows 7 from XP, we saw a drastic reduction in malware/virus infection (it's at 0 since Win7 was adapted, which was a few months after its release), and also we saved a lot on the electric bill, thanks to Windows 7 (well Vista) improved power management system. Anyway, XP is a very old OS, based on the original NT, that is a 1993 OS. All it's weaknesses in security are well known by people doing these viruses, and malware. A famous virus attack we had in XP, was people opening an e-mail an executable, a fake anti-virus, which, without restart, can turn the account, despite on the domain under very restrictive policies (but non a mandatory profile, as we wanted program settings and Windows settings to carry with them), to become Administrator, delete all personal files, and places it's viruses, pop-up malware, and redirect websites to a proxy server to, possibly, start stealing bank account information.

 

No, I was not comparing to XP. I was pointing out that I gave a 'lay person' linux and they were fine. It was also a linux from 8 years ago. I was also pointing out that my dad uses his ubuntu laptop with people at his work (they have to use his laptop to complete work) and they just don't have a problem using it. If you need bespoke software yeah linux might not be viable but for most people, bar gamers (at least till valve get the ball rolling), linux is perfectly fine. There are some things you need to do differently but they are not as much as Windows 8.

 

VirtualBox, or dual boot. When I first used Ubuntu, I fell in love with it immediately due to its easy customisation and flexibility. When presented with the problem of not being able to use Photoshop (GIMP is terrible), I just ran Windows in a VM and ran Photoshop in there. This isn't the most elegant answer, as files are contained on the VM which are not accessible from the host OS, but that what network sharing/cloud storage is for. I ran Sketchup 8 in WINE with absolutely no issues whatsoever, and Kerkythea has a native Linux release.

The problem with open source software is that there can be gaps in continuity. The patchwork can lead to a very powerful and feature rich application, however the user interface is god awful. Take GIMP for example - it's very good at what it does, but it is very fiddly and the separate windows for each toolbox is annoying to work with. Blender is actually very powerful for free software, but the interface is cramped and confusing.

On the MS and Apple side however, programs have this visual polish which seem to suggest that they are better than they actually are. They make the interfaces simple because they know that the layman will be using it, and it works. You open up GIMP/O/Blender and think 'WTF', then close it and eventually go back to Windows because it has 'better' apps. If OpenOffice had a lick of paint, I'm sure it would be just as popular as MSOffice.

On the topic of gaming, the 'chicken and egg' analogy is right. You need one for the other to work. Someone above mentioned that the PS3 used OpenGL. I don't see the problem here with porting these over to Linux (I know that PS3 uses a different architecture to the x86 platform used on PC, but that doesn't stop console to PC ports normally). The same applies to XBox games, if developers will make a game for XBox, PS3 and PC, then they have to make it work for OpenGL, DirectX, and not to mention the separate architectures across all three platforms. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but it's probably more down to whether it's worth it for the sake of a 'handful' of Linux users, bearing in mind that this is only a handful because devs only make games for Windows. The same principle applies for professional software.

Perhaps it's down to the fact that developers of commercial software have an aversion to developing for those who are accustomed to open source software, people who won't possibly pay for something when they can use a free alternative. Let's not forget that GIMP, Blender and OpenOffice are also available for Windows.

 

GIMP 2.8 has single-window mode, which solves that problem. This is an example of what open-source software can achieve - the community wanted single-window mode, it generated high interest in the users of GIMP, and therefore the developers added it into the release. With a commercial product you usually find there has to be auditing and many other corporate decisions that must be made before such a change can come into a product. And it is often for a fee.

 

Tried it, while it's better, it's not much improvement. If you scale the window smaller, the layout isn't adjusted, it just cuts the layout out. Also, the interface is still panel based on that mode. What I mean is that all they did, is make the picture window, have the tool bars and add gray bars on the left and right of the window. anything you open, shows as external panels which you need to pin, and the side gray bar that you pin panels are, isn't scalable.

Still a lot of work is needed. But it's a step in the right direction.

 

@lp rob1:

You raise a good point. The beauty of open source software is that if you don't like something, you can fix it. Even better is the fact that you can submit a potential enhancement and it might actually get applied.

The single-window mode also supports my original point. If the interface was any good, then I would have noticed this and applied it myself. This isn't a stab at Linux, but more towards the devs who make the software that Linux depends on to provide a suitable working environment for the average user that can match Windows.

GoodBytes: I see your point, however you seem to know your stuff, so be part of the solution. Saying "why should I?" after complaining about something is what halts progress and keeps open source software in the dark ages.

 

Such a typical response from a fully signed up member of the linux fan club.... If you're OS doesn't do what you want then just write your own software.

Classic! That may be 100% impractical but it's much more educational than using an OS with a wider set of options.

In fact every single single you've said has the typical pro-linux slant to it. Be honest, linux may be clever and viable for some,but it's not as user friendly and 'muggle proof' as windows or OSX.

 

This is hardly a surprise, since everyone might end up buying their games through the app store (I know I would). Personally I would never switch to linux, windows is just so easy

 

agree!

'muggle proof' your going to have to explain this. If you mean what i think you mean, i have typed this with my toes, due to double facepalming!

 

Apparently Guinevere, because it was she who posted this last bit, believes that ordinary people are too dumb to use a real pc. The sad thing is that dumbing things down, in this case the Windows/Metro 8 user interface, turns this into a kind of a selffulfilling prophecy.

 

The few 'normal people' who I have shown Linux to (it was Ubuntu 11.04 back then I think) caught on really well to the slightly different interface, had no problems using the different software, and even loved the cool Compiz effects. Installing software through a package manager is the easiest way possible to install software - in this regard Windows is actually 'harder' than most distros. I have proven time and time again that a different user interface does not push people away - in fact they often spend a little time getting used to it so they can work with it more efficiently.

I recently completed a Linux distro, based on Ubuntu but with custom themes, programs and user interface. I was making it look similar to Gnome 2, but in XFCE. Menu button on a bar at the top, clock at the top, windows opening in the task bar at the bottom. This was the Karoshi Client 2.0 release (see my sig for The Linux Schools Project). After installing it in 2 computer rooms at my school and watching my classmates use the new client, 95% had no problems whatsoever. No asking for help, no moaning about how bad it is, nothing. They just sat down, acknowledged the new look, and carried on. The 5% who were not able to use it straight away asked classmates for help, and were soon on their way.
I know this case does not represent the adult populus, as children are usually more technologically friendly, but if it is this easy for children, then all adults will need is half an hour working around the user interface, before they use it just as effectively as the previous OS.
(In this example the previous OS was Karoshi Client 1.0, but it very closely resembled Windows, and can thus represent Windows in this example)

 

People don't moan and complain in a school environment. At university I already entered a Linux lab. Did I complain? No. Would I use it over Windows if I had the choice? Yes. I came in, I used what I had to use to get my work done. Did I enjoy it? No. It got the job done, all other labs where full, I had to shut up, and get work done. Because complaining, won't magically turn the system into Windows.

The better news, is that the following year, now all labs at university have dual boot Windows/Linux on them. I guess many people complained... and the labs are for engineering and computer science. Since then, I see 99.9% running Windows on them.

I put Linux in my dad and mom computer in the early days. Mainly due, me not having money to buy a Windows license. My parents used it just fine. The only I did is made it look closer to Windows, with the task bar and all. But nothing drastic. It was clearly different. The day my mom and dad needed Windows for some programs that didn't run on wine. I put them Windows, which was a few years later... and had money for buying licenses. And the only thing I got, when asked what do they think, is how nice it is, how easier it is to get things done, and how easier it is to read text.

 

Our school just moved from windows to something different :O and pretty much everyone complained and they are planning to move back for next year .

 

Windows 8 is a more limited gimmicky windows 7 basically...

 

How is it more limited, when you have large performance improvements, and much more features than Windows 7?