Here we go again...
Your "correction" was bogus and you went round in ever decreasing circles, so I gave up with you. In fact, later on you actually swapped the argument round and accused me of saying the thing that you were. :shadedshu I showed that thread to some friends and they couldn't believe what you'd done, lol.
As I said, I'm against
any company that tries to pull stunts like this.
I never swapped the argument. You have always been of the opinion that Microsoft is behind Secure Boot, and it is their product, and you are dead wrong. You might mention in the article that it is actually a UEFI feature, but you title the article as if it was a Microsoft Windows 8 feature, when it isn't. And if you friends couldn't believe what I had done, why? Because they were amazed that I could make a logical argument that made you look stupid? It really isn't that hard. And I showed your threads to some of my friends, and most of them couldn't believe someone who calls themselves a new reporter would post such opinionated "news articles" without doing even the very basic of research on the subject, such as figuring out who really was behind the features before just blaming Microsoft based on the false opinions that "Microsoft has all the money" and "Windows 8 supports the feature, so Microsoft is at the root of the feature". And they really couldn't believe when you actually tried to counter x86-64 might as well be called a Microsoft invention by your logic argument with "well Microsoft does have 64-bit Edition right in the name"...
And no, you obviously aren't against any company that tries to pull stunts like this. You harped on Microsoft for Secure Boot, but ignored the fact that it was IBM, Apple, AMD, Intel, Lenovo, HP, and Dell that had just as much influence and in fact they were pushing for it long before Win8 started supporting it. And your response to that? "Well we all know Microsoft has the money, so we all know who is really pulling the strings." Really? Because Apple alone has more money than Microsoft, and all those other companies combined have waaaay more money than Microsoft. Yet, you singled out Microsoft?
Explain that. The only explanation is you are Anti-Microsoft.
Well, the Metro interface has been created to replace the standard desktop and you can only use it with apps from the Windows Store, so yes, developers and users will have to use it. They are indeed, trying to "pull an Apple".
Oh, and I love your attempt at BS researchless claims to try and some how justify your original anti-microsoft bashing. The "Microsoft has all the money" comment about secure boot, and now this BS to try and justify this anti-microsoft rant.
Sorry, but you don't have to use Metro UI.
AND you don't have to use it only with apps from the Windows Store. Any program you install on the computer through the normal method works with the Metro UI. So you have no clue what you are talking about, obviously, and are just making stuff up at this point to help make your anti-microsoft bash seem legit.:shadedshu
It is too bad for you that some people will actually research things, and point out that your claims are complete BS. Try at least doing
a little research before making statements, it will help with your credibility as a news reporter.
Yes, I've used it for a bit a while back and obviously I had confused the purpose of the registry hack over time. I still think my wider point that MS is trying to push towards this closed model is valid, though. As ever, "time will tell".
