C'mon.. I know you aren't that ignorant. Why do you persist on spewing this kind of crap when you know full well the fallout that will ensue.

Those comments don't even warrant the time it would take to negate them (even though it would take a very short amount of it).

Good old Phoon. Same old stuff different day. This forum really could benefit from an ignore feature.

(Phoon you do realize that my statements are opinion and should be treated as such right?)

Kona: A statement that all computers look better WITHOUT Stardock software is likely to be at odds with many people on these forums and is especially odd when posted from the Wincustomize forums.

While you are naturally free to have your own opinion you should consider the location you are in before typing.

Sorry about that Neil. Everyone knows I prefer the default look of Windows. It's been said many times. I see your point. I will be more tactful in the future.

No.

You were taking issue with Raiddinn's suggestion that Windows 8 was more secure than anything MS had previously released.

Let me refresh your memory.

To which I responded with suggestions of a few reasons why Raiddinn's point would in fact be correct.

You don't get to jump into a conversation and fire off some opinions (especially ones not based in anything factual) then change your point entirely and expect no additional conversation/discussion.

Actually I do. I can do what I like. In this case however, I am going to gracefully bow out. I was wrong.

That is totally absurd, and only opinion.

I can't imagine a Windows OS without Windowblinds at least. CursorFX as well.

Yeah, if you prefer bland, lifeless and dreary, running what MS thinks you should like, then all computers in your world may look better without SD software.

My world needs SD software. I wouldn't dream of running Windows 8 without Stardock, no way, no how. And currently, Windows 8.1 is my default OS, has been for a few months now.

I run Ubuntu in VMWare, as well as Vista, and XP. I run 7 as a dual boot alongside Windows 8.1, with a UEFI bios. I'm guessing I could add Ubuntu in a triple boot setup if I wanted. VM is good enough for me.

I wouldn't trade Windows for Linux ever.

Opinion, of course.

Probably a good idea.... allowing you to remain commenting here purely for comedic value probably isn't really Politically Correct...

Usually people who clearly are trolling negativity towards Stardock/Stardock's products are politely shown the door.

I'm getting pretty close to banning you  from my forums.  You do little other than disrupt threads with opinions that are devoid of even the semblance of actual knowledge on whatever topic you're opining on and regularly make snide comments to other members who treat you with kiddie gloves. No more. Get a goddamn clue or get the hell out.

I think that what W8/8.1 lack (in appearance as well as function) goes beyond the start menu.

The functionality thing is apps in windows (remember? that's why it was called Windows in the first place, no?).

The saving of W8/8.1 will come by adopting a ModernMix type solution... That is what will save W8 along with the start menu, if anything can.

For some reason, this really reminds me of the saga of Vista with its SP1 and SP2.

I've always found the parallels between vista and W8 to be near perfect....both OSes represented important (and necessary) changes, but had serious flaws and needed a clean successor to really give the market what it desired...

Point taken Brad. I will do my best at being a better member of this great community. My apologies to all. Thank you.

Except that Vista had its fix...it was called 'Windows 7', however Win 8 is still yet to see its 'repair'....

That's just it, Paul. "Threshold" (if it has the start menu and ModernMix 'fixes') would comprise the parallel to Vista SP1 and 2.

Doc I think Jafo was saying Windows 9 is needed to fill the void of the Windows 8 market failure, not "Threshold". I could be wrong. It took Windows 7 to fix Vista.