Which made sense when it was the netbook UI. It makes no sense on a 24" monitor, or even a 17" laptop screen.

I dumped Ubuntu on my laptop recently for Linux Mint with the MATE GUI (basically Gnome 2 with bug-fixes) and it's vastly more useful than Unity on a decently-sized screen.

Of course if they are forced to do it.... what the f? They are FORCED to do this? By whom? Did the Allmighty appeard in front of the MS Execs and ordered it with the threat of the curse of the too small penisses? Did an terrorist group hold their families hostage and force them to release these details (but not before 08.04.14)?

for the solution, read my old <span class="bold">post</span>........

Microsoft hasn't made it any easier for the criminals to exploit XP, but at the same time there's not much they can do to prevent them reverse-engineering the patches they issue after support has ended (since at least some vulnerabilities fixed for Vista and newer will also exist in XP).

Mac OS X and iOS don't look anything alike. Apple have been very careful not to make a one-size fit's all DE. They brought some stuff from iOS and adapted it for desktop use. So either you have not used any of these or just trying to misled people again.

Unity is in the same boat. How it behaves on desktop is nothing like how it will behave on a mobile phone. Want proof? Google ubuntu phone. Your claim shows either ignorance or just intention to mislead.

My beef with early Unity (Ubuntu 11.x series) was that it crashed a lot and was generally unusable because of it. Also there were performance issues for gaming. All of that has since been fixed. As for your claim, please back it up with something.

You can *ignore* metro once you install a bunch of stuff that will hide it away. Chances are that if you're savvy to find and use those programs you're in pretty good shape to copy and paste a command line that installs a new DE.

Unity was originally created for Netbook and devices with smaller screen in mind, and it's a fact not an opinion, pretending it's not the case shows either ignorance, intention to mislead, or to take another of your term famboyism.

What ? that Unity caused controversy in the Linux and even Ubuntu community ? Seriously ? Please don't tell me you are going to pretend it never happens.

Metro is just a layer on top of the "normal" desktop environment; Unity IS the desktop environment. That kind of make a difference.

Current day unity does not share the same design principles as did back then. Some of the UI elements stuck, others were discarded. It evolved.

I did not say there was not controversy. What I wanted was proof for this "That a lot of peoples don't like Unity". Until I see some numbers, you and others that seem to be frothing at the mouth are in the vocal minority.

Just like a DE is a layer on Linux and Unix desktops. A new DE is just a copy&paste away. Also Unity is just part of the DE. Compiz provides windowing, desktop compositing and Unity is a plugin for it. The other bits and pieces are all from Gnome.

You can switch DE on Linux and Unix systems like FreeBSD. You're pretty stuck with what you get on the Apple and MS desktops.

Good for you? I guess?

Nice try but you are just splitting hairs here; of course everything is a layer of something that is probably a layer of something else, but Unity is the DE, it's what user are going to interact with; knowing that is uses Compiz or magical dust fairies under the hood is meaningless; on the other side Metro is just an extra part slapped on top of the DE and for peoples who uses desktop applications they are only doing to see it and interact with it once or twice during their session.


http://www.lsdev.org/doku.php
http://www.emergedesktop.org
http://cairoshell.github.io/
http://sharpe.sourceforge.net/

I wish Metro was just a layer, and the same old full Win7 desktop environment could be found below it. Unfortunately that is not quite so, that's why people have been wanting to install third-party Start-menu replacements to Win8. Even I am now considering installing one, but I am just a bit wary whether it will cause any compatibility problems (with Win8.1 etc.).

For me the main reason to dislike both Metro and Unity was similar: having to re-learn lots of things, without it giving me any real benefit. But in both cases, I've felt I can learn to live with the new ways, if I have to.

Oh wow. You have such intimate knowledge of how Metro is implemented. Do you work for Microsoft? Once again. Proof. Got any?

Why I bother asking for proof I do not know. You failed to produce anything but words in your other posts.

Wow! The phrase "putting lipstick on a pig" comes to mind. They just seem to add some missing functionality (like multiple desktops) and re-skin some UI elements. Also, only one of those is considered stable and one other is not maintained anymore. Hmm stay with what's considered stable or install a hack job? Hardly a choice.

Are you seriously comparing full featured desktop environments like KDE, Gnome, Unity (which is basically Gnome + compiz and unity), XFCE or even LXDE with those things you posted links to? Full desktop functionality in just 33MB. LoL. This is getting ridiculous

Thread makes me chuckle. WinXP is more than a decade old now, move on. If you want to keep it around for classic games that don't run on Win7 then keep it offline.

Yeah, stay offline for 100% security & having the benefits of a matured OS.

Also, the XP support might be taken up in future by the user community. Like it happend before with 95, 98 ME, 2000 which were taken up by MSFN community who created for instance the Windows 9se service pack (updated up to now) or a kernel expansion (KernelEx)

first XP fixes and tweaks are already available MDGX's Windows XP Post-SP3 Updates + Fixes , USB post SP3-patches or here

Also, some cooperation / hybrid patches from the reactos folks might arise... some critical parts might be taken in future from them.

Well, while a linux distro might a subsitute securitywise, by functionality and compatiblity as platform it lacks still to much ...sadly. The linux ecosystem would have to overcome the fragmentation on all levels first (but not via Steam... :( )... and/or had to accept the win32/directX API as unifying platform via WINE.

I think similarly, but if it is true that Microsoft was still supplying XP to some OEMs as late as 2010... well, they just shouldn't have done that, I guess. I'm surprised if they did. Most people don't update their Windows until they buy a new PC.

It will be interesting to know how this will change in the future. As Ballmer confirmed, Microsoft wants to become a device and service provider instead of a software (OS) company. In the future, will you even be able to install newest Windows to your post-PC device, or does it always mean you usually have to buy a whole new Windows device anyway in order to get the latest Windows?

I'm pretty sure I don't have the latest Android release on either my tablet nor my smartphone, and can't (without rooting) have them, even if I wanted. At some point I seemed to get new OS updates (firmwares) for my tablet quite often, but then at some point they just ceased to come anymore. Maybe ASUS felt they don't want to release the newest Android updates to their older Transformer tablet anymore.

Also I think the first Nokia Windows phones couldn't be upgraded properly to the proper Windows RT anymore, which made the people who had bought those phones quite angry.