Windows 8: Microsoft spent three years killing the Start menu ?

[Sailor Steve]

I know you're excited, but please pause for a breath once in awhile. In other words, use some punctuation.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Sites that benchmark always use a cleanly installed rig, the result wouldn't be worth anything if they didn't.

I don't see what the amount if ram was makes a difference as long as it was the same for both tests.

Finally, from me at the moment, If they can't benchmark a new release within 24 hours of release then that would be a poor do.

[SeaWolf U-57]

Sites that benchmark always use a cleanly installed rig, the result wouldn't be worth anything if they didn't.

AH yes you know this for sure do you


I don't see what the amount if ram was makes a difference as long as it was the same for both tests.

it don't eh


Finally, from me at the moment, If they can't benchmark a new release within 24 hours of release then that would be a poor do.

Ah but did they or was it the beta version

[Arclight]

Right let's back up a wee bit; this for me is the key point why Win8 is not interesting:

Originally Posted by SeaWolf U-57

Ok after all said and done the truth is if you ignore all the flashy looking items and just select the desk top option as soon as the system boots up the it looks, acts and runs like a fast version of Window 7.

It was never really going to be faster. It is the same thing with a few tweaks, which according to tests by the people who know how to do these tests do not net any real-world improvement.

Then what's the point of getting windows 8?

If it is Windows 7 with a new flashy GUI and you turn off the new GUI, what is the point of it?


Every time someone mentions the GUI as a negative, the defenders point out you can turn it off. What they fail to realise is that they just said Windows 8 has no point, no place on a desktop where Windows 7 exists.

[the_tyrant]

Windows 8 is the next vista, there is no doubting that.
Even Microsoft themselves understand that.

Now what is the defining trait of vista? Little to no enterprise adoption.

Sure, there are a vocal group that hates it(I never really hated it), but statistically, a tiny number of people actually downgraded their pcs that came with vista back to xp. (enterprises bought volume licenses, and are not counted.)

Now on this front, 8 is at best a vista. My school is just about to roll out 7, just like many other large organizations. No way are we moving to 8, we will probably just move to 9.

Fundamentally, windows 8 has many big advantages over 7. The oems have been screaming for a long time that 7 is no longer competitive against os x mountain lion. Windows 8 strikes back against mountain lion in every way imaginable. OS x has the dashboard, a collection of "light", iPad like apps, windows 8 has metro. Windows 8 has touchpad gesture support that is just as good as OS X if not better.

I think there is a learning curve, it will take maybe a day or two to get used to. But it has made my workflow much, much faster.

In fact, I would actually argue, that windows 8 represents the trend for the future. Every single desktop environment is moving towards the same direction. KDE, OS X, Gnome, Unity, etc.

The big thing about windows 8 is "glanceability", aka imagine this usage scenario:

I'm working on a spread sheet in Excel. And suddenly I get a facebook message.

On windows 8, I would be notified by a notification, and in one glance, I would get a good idea of the message, who its from and the subject. allowing me to make a quick decision within seconds, not even needing to lift fingers off the keyboard.

On windows 7, I would have to periodically login to facebook to check my messages. breaking my workflow, and requiring multiple clicks and possibly a login.

Or, consider that in windows 8, with one hit of the windows button, I would get a quick view of my email, latest news, latest weather, stock quotes, facebook updates, etc. and with another hit of the windows button, I would be back doing exactly what I was doing.

In order to do the same thing on windows 7, it would take me 5 minutes, visiting a dozen sites, and opening a dozen programs, completely breaking my concentration.


The concept of glanceability is one that all modern UIs are working towards. KDE had a pretty good implementation with its widget system, but I have to admit, it is much cruder than the windows implementation.

PS: windows store also sells desktop apps. Plus, it takes a much lower cut than traditional brick and mortar stores, and if your app is a big seller, Microsoft takes a 20% cut instead of 30% that apple takes.

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by Arclight

Right let's back up a wee bit; this for me is the key point why Win8 is not interesting:It was never really going to be faster. It is the same thing with a few tweaks, which according to tests by the people who know how to do these tests do not net any real-world improvement.

Then what's the point of getting windows 8?

If it is Windows 7 with a new flashy GUI and you turn off the new GUI, what is the point of it?


Every time someone mentions the GUI as a negative, the defenders point out you can turn it off. What they fail to realise is that they just said Windows 8 has no point, no place on a desktop where Windows 7 exists.

There is actually quite a bit of an improvement with windows 8 for the desktop side.

For example, file system operations have become a LOT better. File transfers are pauseable now. Windows 8 also manages multiple file transfers at once better.

Hyper V is also available for free for windows 8 pro.

Drive extender allows much easier management of volumes spread between multiple hard drives. I personally use this a lot to organize my, um, adult video collection.

The task scheduler is supposed to actually unleash the performance of AMD's FX series now (or so I heard), I don't have one, so I really can't comment on it.

Native multitouch trackpad support, and native NFC.

Finally, the UI thread is optimized to give you less studdering, freezes and lag that you see in older versions of windows.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

Windows 8 is the next vista, there is no doubting that.
Even Microsoft themselves understand that.

Good so we'll wait for Win 9

Now what is the defining trait of vista? Little to no enterprise adoption.

No it sucked.

The big thing about windows 8 is "glanceability", aka imagine this usage scenario:

I'm working on a spread sheet in Excel. And suddenly I get a facebook message.

On windows 7, I would have to periodically login to facebook to check my messages. breaking my workflow, and requiring multiple clicks and possibly a login.

In order to do the same thing on windows 7, it would take me 5 minutes, visiting a dozen sites, and opening a dozen programs, completely breaking my concentration.

Sorry but you lost me there completly.

First Win 7 doesn't break your workflow nor Concentration because it doesn't notify you when you get a new message it's you who is breaking your workflow and concentration by loggin into facebook.

You're the one distracting yourself by doing other things instead of concentrating on your work not the other way around.

Also Win 8 would then most likely to distract you as it let's you know when someones writing to you or posting something on FB or other social medias by notifications which you'll probally want to respond to thus breaking your workflow and concentration.

HunterICX

[SeaWolf U-57]

Originally Posted by Arclight

Right let's back up a wee bit; this for me is the key point why Win8 is not interesting:It was never really going to be faster. It is the same thing with a few tweaks, which according to tests by the people who know how to do these tests do not net any real-world improvement.

Then what's the point of getting windows 8?

If it is Windows 7 with a new flashy GUI and you turn off the new GUI, what is the point of it?


Every time someone mentions the GUI as a negative, the defenders point out you can turn it off. What they fail to realise is that they just said Windows 8 has no point, no place on a desktop where Windows 7 exists.

Excuse me But have I not said that on my rig its IS faster. You have shown my quote then say its not true it is really like talking to a broken record isn't it I have used both versions and for me Windows 8 is better and faster. But hey you can carry on burying your heads in the rubbish you read and quote

[Skybird]

Tyrant,

one really has to differ between the platform type. On touchscreens and tablets and actually even smartphones, Metro actually might be functioning good. That is what this gesture stuff is being developed for, right?

But for the normal home PC, using a normal screen and mouse and keyboard, it is completely pointless, even more, it works ergonomically significantly worse than the pre-W8 design.

There might be internal security features that make W8 taking the lead over W7, I read about some memory safety features, I admit that was a bit too much techy as if I really understood that stuff in depth. But the features you listed as advantages, for me - and I assume for many others as well - are simply uninteresting. I do not care whether I can pause file transfers, or can have two such processes at the same time. That is nice to gain some points in an academical test, but the relevance for the ordinary PC handling of the ordinary home user - not to mention gamer - is close to zero.

Microsoft does not agree that it is customer-orientation when you design and sell products that customers want, but thinks it must force the customer to buy what MS thinks it SHOULD want. That is at the heart of the problem, and Microsoft wants it this way because as I explained earlier it wants to piush customers into stricter dependency from its now rising own appstore, like Apple does with its own customers since years, and Amazon does with its tablet, and Google.

Establishing the Microsoft appstore and training customers to accept being dependent of that like Apple users are only able to buy via appstore - this is the primary and imo even only real intention and mission objective of W8, that is why they ignored criticism of Metro during the Beta phase, and it explains why the Start button has gone, and the start menu, and why Microsoft tries hard to get people away from wanting the traditional, non-app-based Windows design, and go for Metro even on hardware where using metro makes no sense. Ergonomically and technically it makes no sense to install Metro on a non-touch-screen system. But Commercially, and financially, and long-term-strategically, it makes all sense you could desire! - IMO this is all one needs to know about W8. And since a PC software market no longer free for developers and modders and 2nd hand buyers ( mind you, all this campaigning against software pirates and for security is mostly done to dry out the second hand market) might be commercially lucrative for Microsoft, but is at the cost of customer interests, I hope that W8 fails miserably. Microsoft must suffer financially and so dearly that the pain makes it rethinking the plan and split the OS developement again - one in the Metro format for tablets, smartphones and touchscreen, one in the traditional Windows format.


Actually form the little I saw, for tablets Metro might be pretty good. But I do not want a tablet. And I totally hate appstore philosophies and the resulting dependency and the power that just one company has on future software design. The Game market already has suffered from consoles. Tailoring it even more towards a handful of standard schemes, will do even more damage, and things like niche games and simulations you can probably forget completely sooner or later.

[SeaWolf U-57]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Microsoft rethinking the plan and split the OS developement again - one in the Metro format for tablets, smartphones and touchscreen, one in the traditional Windows format.

That would be a good idea if windows 8 had been done this way it would not be causing the comments it is.
But saying that even for a old git like myself the way the apps work has a lot of avantages too if you move them to the desk top they change the way they work. even internet explorer 10 from the desktop is worth using.

[Skybird]

Personally, i have zero use for that. I do not even miss to not have a smartphone. Simply completely unneeded. If I would get one as a present or prize, I would sell it. Same for tablets.

The only gadget I would consider to buy is a big-sized e-reader with good display that allows to read Din-A4 PDFs with small letters and maybe two column print without needing to zoom around. That would be worth to me maybe 150 Euros, if the display is close to Din-A4 size. If the tings has some years of lifespan, at least.

E-books I would not buy for it.

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by SeaWolf U-57

Excuse me But have I not said that on my rig its IS faster. You have shown my quote then say its not true it is really like talking to a broken record isn't it I have used both versions and for me Windows 8 is better and faster. But hey you can carry on burying your heads in the rubbish you read and quote

Eh? It's my first response, hardly a broken record.

That it runs faster for you doesn't tell me anything. When I reinstall Windows everything runs a lot faster as well, untill a few months down the line. You can't really compare a Win7 install that you used for months to a fresh Win8 one.

As for the rubbish, I think that's a bit of a slight against the experts that go through the trouble of setting up test-beds, doing the legwork and writing several-page articles on the matter. These guys have forgotten more than you and me know combined.


At any rate, Tyrant makes a good point about the file transfer and task manager: much better. But beyond that there really isn't much; yes, virtualization is leaps ahead but hardly anyone uses that outside professional applications. Native trackpad is nice but again hardly anyone uses one of those on a desktop. With multi-core optimizations we're talking 2-10% at most, and only for applications that are actually heavily threaded (video&audio editing, archivers).

I understand Win8 Phone on a smartphone, I get RT on a tablet, Win8 makes sense on a laptop with a build-in touchscreen and multi-touch trackpad, but on a desktop?

That's my point; why do we need to drag all that over to desktops? For example, what's the point of an "app" if you have proper applications and a browser?

[SeaWolf U-57]

I had two new build machines that are virgins i.e no previous install installed 7 on one and 8 on the other tested them formatted the hard drives swapped them and then tested again hardly rigs that have run for months.
the window 8 one i am using myself now

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Arclight

what's the point of an "app" if you have proper applications and a browser?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

[SeaWolf U-57]

the picture above is IE10 running on the desktop not an app