I think it was back in winxp days that someone introduced me to a MacOSX program (whos name I now have forgotten), which let you type a program name and it would launch the program, having previously pre-indexed certain locations.

Since I don't use Mac, I found a windows version of the program - http://www.launchy.net/ - which I've been using ever since then. I hardly bother with the start menu, though Launchy actually DOES index the start menu as one of my places where it looks for .lnk files. So, as long as I can get my Launchy to work on Win8 and later versions, I'll be happy (I'm quite used to pressing Alt+Space and typing in stuff, including simple math problems :) )

FUD

Well, you've managed to describe half of these incorrectly, so it's no surprise to me you're so against them. You're also pretty sweeping with your statements that these things are "shit nobody needs" and then go on to describe how one feature is bad for power users and another is bad for causal users completely ignoring the fact that they address the opposite audience.

As far as desktops go, I find the Metro interface to be anywhere from slightly to dramatically worse than Win7, depending on what exactly I'm doing. (The start screen is on the "slightly" end of that scale.) At no point is it ever an improvement. The odd thing is there's a lot of shoddy Metro interface, but once you go digging the old interface from 7 is always lurking in the shadows and works way better. So I just work through the management panel and control panel when I'm doing system stuff.

There are a variety of small but nice improvements to the non-Metro areas of the system, like the explorer dialogs or the task manager. These are welcome improvements but they are by no means life changing. tstrimple's list of Win8 improvements is mostly bullshit, of course. Storage spaces is nice but it's not "smart" anything, it's just software raid. We've had that. Hyper-V's been around for several years. Several of the other entries are things that have been advertised repeatedly with every iteration of Windows. (And including secure boot on the list is comical.)

My current state of mind is that if Win8 is already installed, I'll leave it. But I certainly won't choose it over 7.

What worries me more than the missing start button or ugly UI is the DRM-BIOS that gets pushed onto people. If you buy a computer it should be your choice whats running on it and not of some company holding the key.

All secure boot does is require a signed binary to boot. There is nothing preventing you from providing your own certificate for whatever binaries you want, or to disable secure boot from bios entirely. This is just more FUD around Microsoft restricting your choices.

Except that is not true at all. To begin with, "safe boot" cannot be disabled on the ARM architecture at all according to "Windows Hardware Certification Requirements", unless the motherboard doesn't plan to certify as Windows compatible (very unlikely).

"ARM" includes not only 90% of all mobiles, but also future server/desktops that you maybe want to build when AMD's ARMv8 processors come out next year.

Also, the way how UEFI works is different. Refer to chapter 27 of the specification, which is not FUD around Microsoft, but reality.

Initially, the computer is in what the specification calls "setup mode", that is, there is no key installed. When the Windows 8 installer secretly, and without user consent, installs its certificate, the computer switches to "user mode".

Installation of another key in "user mode" is exclusively possible if that key has been signed by the installed key. Also, an installed key can only be removed by installing a zero key that must be signed by the installed key.

We are talking about a key signed by a key owned by Microsoft, not some arbitrary key from Verisign. An implementation that adheres to the UEFI standard and that is not "broken" is not allowed to do something else. Which means no more and no less than the concerns are very valid.

As far as desktops go, I find the Metro interface to be anywhere from slightly to dramatically worse than Win7, depending on what exactly I'm doing. (The start screen is on the "slightly" end of that scale.) At no point is it ever an improvement. The odd thing is there's a lot of shoddy Metro interface, but once you go digging the old interface from 7 is always lurking in the shadows and works way better. So I just work through the management panel and control panel when I'm doing system stuff.

There are a variety of small but nice improvements to the non-Metro areas of the system, like the explorer dialogs or the task manager. These are welcome improvements but they are by no means life changing. tstrimple's list of Win8 improvements is mostly bullshit, of course. Storage spaces is nice but it's not "smart" anything, it's just software raid. We've had that. Hyper-V's been around for several years. Several of the other entries are things that have been advertised repeatedly with every iteration of Windows. (And including secure boot on the list is comical.)

Completely agreed on the first point. Unless I'm on my tablet, I almost never use a Metro app. There are, however, some significant differences between software raid and storage spaces, and each has it's uses. Storage spaces promise to be much easier to setup and manage, as well as easier to expand in the future. I haven't compared, but I'm sure RAID is going to be faster at the cost of a more complicated and rigid setup. Sure hyper-v has been around, but it hasn't been on the consumer version of the operating system.

What worries me more than the missing start button or ugly UI is the DRM-BIOS that gets pushed onto people. If you buy a computer it should be your choice whats running on it and not of some company holding the key.

All secure boot does is require a signed binary to boot. There is nothing preventing you from providing your own certificate for whatever binaries you want, or to disable secure boot from bios entirely. This is just more FUD around Microsoft restricting your choices.

Except that is not true at all. To begin with, "safe boot" cannot be disabled on the ARM architecture at all according to "Windows Hardware Certification Requirements", unless the motherboard doesn't plan to certify as Windows compatible (very unlikely).

"ARM" includes not only 90% of all mobiles, but also future server/desktops that you maybe want to build when AMD's ARMv8 processors come out next year.

Also, the way how UEFI works is different. Refer to chapter 27 of the specification, which is not FUD around Microsoft, but reality.

Initially, the computer is in what the specification calls "setup mode", that is, there is no key installed. When the Windows 8 installer secretly, and without user consent, installs its certificate, the computer switches to "user mode".

Installation of another key in "user mode" is exclusively possible if that key has been signed by the installed key. Also, an installed key can only be removed by installing a zero key that must be signed by the installed key.

We are talking about a key signed by a key owned by Microsoft, not some arbitrary key from Verisign. An implementation that adheres to the UEFI standard and that is not "broken" is not allowed to do something else. Which means no more and no less than the concerns are very valid.

You're conflating two things. Windows 8 tablets running on ARM devices and Windows 8 desktops / laptops / tablets running on x86 processors. All x86 devices are required by Microsoft to have an option in bios to disable secure boot. As you mentioned ARM devices must not have an option to disable the secure boot. This may or may not change when ARM desktop processors come out, but until then it's mostly a non-issue. People who care about this will not buy Windows 8 ARM tablets.

And no, you are incorrect. The signing isn't done by Microsoft and doesn't have to use Microsoft's key. The benefit of using the Microsoft key is it will boot on all devices that run Windows 8. You could always disable secure boot, or change it from standard to custom mode (both of which are required options) and provide your own keys.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-US/library/windows/hardware/jj128256

Mandatory. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:

1. It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx), which puts the system into setup mode.
   
2. If the user ends up deleting the PK then, upon exiting the Custom Mode firmware setup, the system is operating in Setup Mode with SecureBoot turned off.
   
3. The firmware setup shall indicate if Secure Boot is turned on, and if it is operated in Standard or Custom Mode. The firmware setup must provide an option to return from Custom to Standard Mode which restores the factory defaults. On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enabled.

Oh really? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57431236-92/microsoft-bans-firefox-on-arm-based-windows-mozilla-says/

Now that this UEFI crap got onto computers its only a small step to do the same as on tablets. Just taking away the option to disable it and maybe just not signing other bootloaders and suddenly you cant use alternative OS on PC.

Yeah really. This isn't slashdot; throwing around the phrase "DRM" and expecting everyone to nod sagely and agree isn't going to fly.

Secure boot can be disabled.

Far from blocking Firefox, Mozilla are actually joining the party.

Secure boot is not a DRM mechanism.

Secure boot is not a Microsoft technology.

Secure boot is not about blocking applications; it's about verifying integrity of system components during the boot process.

Even Linus is describing the nonsense floating around about it as "fear mongering".

You know what this is like? It's exactly like the FUD that was spread over OpenGL on Vista, that's what it's like.

You know what this is like? It's exactly like the FUD that was spread over OpenGL on Vista, that's what it's like.

Oh man, I had totally forgotten about that incident.

Far from blocking Firefox, Mozilla are actually joining the party.

He was referring to ARM versions which I believe are still blocked.

And no, you are incorrect. [...]

(blah blah)

Yes, very nice, some stuff from MSDN, but irrelevant. The UEFI specification does not contain that clause. Unlike the contents on MSDN which changes almost daily, it is the published, official standard that really matters.

Who knows what this particular paragraph MSDN is about and what validity it has, but since it contradicts the UEFI specification, it is quite probably deliberate misinformation (you could say "anti-FUD").

You're conflating two things. Windows 8 tablets running on ARM devices and Windows 8 desktops / laptops / tablets running on x86 processors.

No. I never mentioned x86 in this context. I was talking about desktop ARM.

The facts, which are the same no matter how much you try to discuss them away, are: In order to get the little blue "Windows 8" sticker which every manufacturer wants, a computer must comply with Microsoft's compliance document. At least insofar as to make the auditor happy.

This document says that on the ARM platform, secure boot may not be disabled. It does not say "ARMv6" or "ARM mobile devices", or "ARM based phones", or "Surface". It says ARM platform, that simple. ARM platform includes desktop computers running on ARM CPUs (present or future). You can discuss about whether that may or may not change in the future, or how it is probably meant (in your opinion), but that does not change the fact that the wording includes any and all ARM platforms.