Microsoft Distributing Windows 8 to Key OEMs?

[dioxholster]

the reset feature is dumb, will probably mess the system even more.

 

[Guest]

Microsoft leaked some early info about Windows 8; the world collectively yawned.

There are 2 types of people: those who hate Microsoft, and those who are indifferent and/or ignorant to Microsoft... Their only fanboys are their annoying-ass employees, of whom Steve Ballmer is the poster child for.

 

[f-14]

[citation][nom]outerheaven[/nom]What about Windows ME??[/citation]
seriously, if you used ME for more then a week i'm going to laugh.

 

[11796pcs]

I truely like the idea of a reset button actually- except often you find viruses in your actual Windows folder so the reset would have to go through all of the Windows folder and probably some Download folders/ IE based crap and then voila! Actually, I have used the restore points in Windows 7 a couple times and they worked perfectly and saved me a reformat so I do believe Microsoft can get it right.

 

[captaincharisma]

[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]seriously, if you used ME for more then a week i'm going to laugh.[/citation]

if you like the color blue than you will love windows ME. thank god i stayed with windows 98SE back then

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]I agree, it makes support costs that much higher for everyone involved. Trying to remember all the details of so many operating systems is a nightmare for everyone. Also, Windows XP was just a bloated, slow, effeminate version of Windows 2000, and supporting one or the other was almost exactly the same. It was easy. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are quite different, and now Windows 8 looks very different too. Microsoft wants money, of course, but the reality is, this is bad for almost everyone else. No one was crying out for a replacement for XP, because the reality is, the OS just doesn't matter that much, and doesn't need to change rapidly. People buy computers for application software, not hardware, or operating systems. Constantly changing the way the OS works, and is supported, adds enormous costs to companies, with little, or no, benefit. Of course, if they would leave the interface, and all the commands the same, it wouldn't be so bad. But they have to keep changing it, so they can say it's different, and you need it. People have changed, evolution hasn't made significant difference the past 15 years. Why does Microsoft somehow believe we need things moved here or there? They still don't have an interface as good as OS/2's, of 15 years ago. It's about time they get it right and stop moving everything all over the place, and acting like changing something from a rectangle to a circle is significant and worthwhile. All it does is create support problems.[/citation]

im crying out for a throwback to xp because i hate vista and 7's ui and "improvements" to the environment. KEY features in xp are missing from 7 and i cant bring myself to upgrade souly because of them.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]Ragnar-Kon[/nom]Too much fail for me to mention. But that was 2000 as well.
I sure hope they don't release DX12 with Windows 8. Most of the market is STILL using DirectX 9.0c. Not seeing the point of spending all that money on R&D for DX12 if no one is going to use it for another 10 years. Having said that, if they release DX12 with Windows 8, and their next-gen XBox also runs a DX12-based API, then it would make sense.[/citation]

Most games don't even fully utilize DX10 since there are very few PC exclusive games and are mostly console ports that need to support DX9.

DX11 probably wont be something we see fully utilized for another 2 years even though it processs the same things as DX9 faster and has better effects using SM 5.0.

DX12 probably wont hit untill after Windows 8, much like DX11 came out after 7 hit. But I would expect at least Windows 7 to support DX12 and probably Vista as well.

If people think Windows 8 coming out in 2012ish is bad Intel releases new CPUs every year. GPUs usually get updated every 6-12 months.

 

[christop]

So where is the beta?

 

[soundping]

Windows (BE) Bubble Edition.

Unless there's a major improvement I'm keeping my Win7.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]Ragnar-Kon[/nom]Too much fail for me to mention. But that was 2000 as well.[/citation]

I use, and still use Windows ME, because it's the best Windows 95 version available. It's widely disparaged on the internet, but when you see someone talk about it, you realize they are talking out their backsides, and probably never used it (of course, they always shout in the strongest terms how they did).

Explain why Windows ME was far worse than Windows 98. I can understand why someone might say 98 was a tiny bit faster, and leaner, and preferred it, but in any event it's so minor one can hardly say Windows ME is horrible. In my experience, it was more stable, and the 2% loss in speed doesn't make it worth it.

The worst thing about Windows ME is it was released after Windows 2000, which was arguably the best OS Microsoft released. Within that context, all the Windows 95/98/ME OS are bad; it's not just ME. But, until multiprocessors, that was the better gaming platform. I still use ME to run older games, since some will not run on Windows NT derivatives, and other need to run on older platforms, and ME is much better than NT at running games of that period. Also, ME/98/95 is much better at running DOS apps (although, I prefer OS/2 for that, which is the best platform for DOS) than Windows NT derivatives. So, for me, ME still has some use. Whether it's better or worse than 98 is debatable, but either way, it's not a lot better or a lot worse. It's entirely undeserving of its bad reputation, which is badly exaggerated by people who want to fit in, and not buck the ignorance of the internet.

 

[sudeshc]

It looks more like windows phone 7 and i think MS can make a OS UI like that. Its not the exactly clear where it will be but feels more like integrated Windows live services.

 

[Ragnar-Kon]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]I use, and still use Windows ME, because it's the best Windows 95 version available. It's widely disparaged on the internet, but when you see someone talk about it, you realize they are talking out their backsides, and probably never used it (of course, they always shout in the strongest terms how they did). Explain why Windows ME was far worse than Windows 98. I can understand why someone might say 98 was a tiny bit faster, and leaner, and preferred it, but in any event it's so minor one can hardly say Windows ME is horrible. In my experience, it was more stable, and the 2% loss in speed doesn't make it worth it.[/citation]
Its not so much that Windows ME is bad, but its release was horrible and filled to the brim with bugs. Actually very similar to the release of Windows Vista. Windows Vista is no longer bad, but its release was horrible, and thus gained the reputation of being horrible.

So I see your logic in saying that its reputation is undeserving, but honestly Windows ME didn't actually start getting better until the few months before Windows XP came out, and by that time most people (including me) either didn't care as they were moving to Windows XP, or had already discovered the gloriousness of Windows 2000.

BUT, personally, my Windows 9x system of preference is Windows 98 SE.

 

[Guest]

guys haven't noticed the leaked screen shot is here: http://www.winrumors.com/windows-8-system-reset-feature-screenshot-leaks/
also linked in the article. I think the bubble was a faked mockup from a while ago

 

[tommysch]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]if you like the color blue than you will love windows ME. thank god i stayed with windows 98SE back then[/citation]

Same here.

 

[Guest]

I'm as cynical as they come, but there are good reasons for this release, as the features will align with important developments in the enterprise space: One is the enabling and facilitating of cloud features. The other is the modularization of WIndows to fit in a tablet form factor. I know this doesn't immediately appeal to consumers, but these are foundational technologies that will roll into the consumer space and make "available everywhere" services on lightweight hardware a reality for Windows users (similar to the what the iPad is promising today, but more closely aligned to enterprise and mainstream consumer needs.)

 

[eyemaster]

[citation][nom]HavoCnMe[/nom]We need software companies to develop strictly x64 programs so we can leave x86 software in the dust. JMO[/citation]
Current x64 implementation is just an extention of x86, so we're no further ahead.

Chips have the x86 decoder, does stuff to it only to transform it into RISC at the core of it all. Avoiding the x86 part would speed up things, but we have too much legacy on it.

 

[Guest]

Windows 8 and Server vNext need to have a new file system. The 2TB partition size is a huge problem for servers and even home users with a penchant for HD video are screaming (or should be).

 

[JOSHSKORN]

I don't know why 32-bit applications are still being written. Most computers sold nowadays seem to come automatically with the 64-bit version of Windows. Why not take advantage of the entire system RAM instead of just 3.3 GB? ...amongst other advantages. Every company that develops browsers need to hop on the 64-bit bandwagon NOW since most people just use the computer to take advantage of the Internet.

 

[PreferLinux]

[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]I don't know why 32-bit applications are still being written. Most computers sold nowadays seem to come automatically with the 64-bit version of Windows. Why not take advantage of the entire system RAM instead of just 3.3 GB? ...amongst other advantages. Every company that develops browsers need to hop on the 64-bit bandwagon NOW since most people just use the computer to take advantage of the Internet.[/citation]
And what on the internet needs >3.3 GB RAM??? 32-bit software can only use 2 GB of RAM per process anyway. And using multiple 32-bit programs on a 64-bit OS lets you use far more than 3.3 GB of RAM anyway.

 

[khaltis]

I think people are forgetting the fact that many linux distros follow the same underlying structure as what microsoft is doing with windows. I say kudos to Microsoft for learning from the other game players out there.

Ubuntu actually has a new release of their operating system every 6 months with LTS releases every 2 years.
Linux is a modular system, which actually allows the user to easily switch between different kernels at the time of boot. I suspect that microsoft is just following suit from linux in terms of this and creating template system modules that can be reverted back to at any time. This sounds to me just like an extension of the existing windows system restore feature.

Change is going to happen whether we like it or not. It's better to be constructive about ideas and changes being made rather than critical of every idea before it has even surfaced for preview. Sometimes great ideas are a result of crappy stepping stones.