look, it's real simple. this may or may not be the UI put on the final product. understand the difference between the UI and an OS and a file system. talk to a *nix dude, there are dozens of desktops available that run on any of the flavors of *nix .... why? simple. the desktop is NOT the FREEKIN OS! I'll try to keep it simple for you tard's out there: file system (= for windows: FAT32, NTFS, WinFS ... I hope soon), OS, then desktop (even in vista you can go for "classic", which traces it's roots back to 95/2000 (or maybe it was 95/NT 4.0, too much beer and bong resin since then), or you can drastically change the UI with third-party software BUT IT DOES NOT alter the core OS in any substantial way!!!).

What these flaming-click-bait articles should be focusing on is if: the core OS issues have been resolved ... and a little farther in the future when we get close to the launch date, what type of desktop and if it resolves the issues of getting to certain areas in a logical and efficient and yes, purty! manner.

I doubt a *nix guy/gal would make this type of mistake. I don't see how a apple guy/gal would make this mistake unless you simply never used anything pre-OSX (from OSX on, apple desktop on top of a _*nix_ flavor on top of the apple file system). and if you are a win user, then for the love of everything that is right and good, learn your stuff or hire an admin or disconnect your box from the 'Net before another Code Red comes along and essentially takes the Net down from all the port scanning activity happening!

Giz, how about actaully hiring/consulting someone that is a sysAdmin to help with articles? OTOH, from a monetary viewpoint, it would be a lose/lose (Admin cost + loss of OS flamewar clicks)!

I smell an upcoming FCC investigation.

NT 3.51 (when I started on the NT OS source tree), NT 4.0, NT 5.0 (win 2000), NT 5.1 (XP), NT 6.0 (Vista) .. and now they are jumping straight to NT 7.0, although "7" is supposed to be largely based on the Vista source. I can see the reason for the whole number jump between 4.0 and win2000 (or was there something in the middle? maybe SP designations?), but 5.0 to 5.1 should have been the model for the upcoming "7" (IOW, it should be NT 6.1 or 6.5 for "win7"). So either they scrapped the majority of code (doubtful), or the jump in versions is due to "morale boosting" among internal and external developers.

FWIW, I run vista ultimate just fine, but my comp is pretty beefy (dual core 3.2, 4 gigs, hardware sata 2 RAID 0 (that's right, raid ZERO... cuz "Danger is my middle name" ;-)).

And the UAC is here to stay, boys and girls. Hopefully the prompts will be reduced greatly (some are just dum-dum-dum), but Windows users have been spoiled (in the past) into running as admin all the time. bad bad bad practice. there is a reason why you don't run all the time as root in *nix and use sudo. I believe this concept is the same in OS X.
I just wish MS would install something like TweakUAC into 7 for "power" users, and have it where you do not have to reboot in order to disable all UAC. Then again, switching security contexts "permamently" for a session (= until reboot) could be exploited code-wise (IOW, viruses).

Signed,

Disgruntled Reader.

If I had to do it over, I would do the same d@#mn thing, but this time, I wouldn't give the stuff back.

Get the guide. It's all in there. Don't let Gizmodo lull you into a false sense of security.