Microsoft Talks About the Team Building Windows 8

[brucek2]

Hmm, an OS experience where applications occupied the entire screen, but if you knew the trick you could rotate through them one screen at a time. Isn't that what we had pre 1990?

For an OS called "Windows" they seemed to have left out the most important part.

 

[Guest]

I'm sick of hearing "Vista/7 uses too much RAM". RAM is dirt cheap. I bought 16GB DDR3 for only $150 a year ago (Don't know about today's prices). My laptop (3 years old) has 4GB and is upgradeable to 8GB for less than $40. And these prices are not for generic RAM. Stop trying to put new OSs on such ancient hardware when it was NOT designed for it. It's like Vista. That ran smooth on newer hardware but ate shit when people tried to install it on their 1ghz cpu, 512mb systems.


On a side note, by the time 7 came out Vista was running as smooth as 7 but no one cared because of the reputation it had built when it launched. (See amk-aka-phantom's dumb remark about Vista) I still have Vista installed in another computer and it runs fast like my 7 computer. I also know a lot of people who says Vista was terrible despite them NEVER even trying it.


Can't wait to try 8.

 

[brucek2]

I did try Vista, and on reasonably powerful hardware at the time. The default behavior of the search indexer was horrible and it would periodically bring (at least the HDD section of) the machine to its knees. After multiple attempts I was finally able to turn it and a few other similar heavyweight services off, but to an average user who would just be stuck with it, it was a nightmare.

 

[yose3]

if that how it gonna look like im staying with window 7

 

[christop]

Watch Crapple try to sue MS over an app store. I will try the beta and see what it's all about..

 

[koga73]

nothing about better multi-monitor support
guess i have to keep ultramon for the time being

 

[eddieroolz]

I hope that the coming of App store means that these apps would install and uninstall cleanly. As in, not leaving crap in the registry and system folder like applications do now.

A slim hope, but maybe someday realized.

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]Fantasticles[/nom]If they would just remove 32-bit version and only have a windows 8 64-bit..[/citation]
Some people will start to whine that their "high performance apps" would run like snails in 64-bit environment.

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]As seen in the video, there will be multiple UIsAs said in the video, the "tablet" UI is the default for all systems[/citation]
Doesn't mean you can't switch UI now, does it?

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Doesn't mean you can't switch UI now, does it?[/citation]
I did just state in the first line of my previous comment that there will be multiple. That does obviously imply you can switch to the other UI.

My complaint still stands that the tablet UI is default for all systems and it is not stated if you can configure the default or if you have to switch each time you boot (although I would hope that you can set your own default).

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]jesus_moreno[/nom]Windows7-aka-Vista-SP2.25 basically gave me a nicer looking desktop, some marginal usability improvements, and a clusterf*ck of odd hardware/driver compatibility issues, and the inability to open some 32 bit Office documents in Office 2010 64 bit.I can't wait for Windows 8 to add more flash, less usability, and even more driver issues.[/citation]
1. Microsoft doesn't write most of the drivers, usually only for their own stuff and some generic ones. They also only make a tiny fraction of the hardware.

2. 32-bit or 64-bit doesn't matter for data files (like Office Documents, images, videos, audio, etc). They're DATA files. You only need to worry about 32- vs 64-bit with executable files (programs).

 

[zankuto]

Look right there is a "Desktop" button in the panels. I think this is the new start screen. But its there the desktop button.

 

[legacy7955]

For the millionth time...there will be a "traditional UI" similar to Win 7 for those with regular desktops and laptops!!!!!!

As long as it performs as good or better than Win7 and windows update is also improved I'm in.

 

[zankuto]

[citation][nom]legacy7955[/nom]For the millionth time...there will be a "traditional UI" similar to Win 7 for those with regular desktops and laptops!!!!!!As long as it performs as good or better than Win7 and windows update is also improved I'm in.[/citation]
While many argue against having both I propose to everyone the possible relief we might have of people who cant even open Microsoft word.

 

[dimar]

I hope they bring back full screen TV as second monitor, when watching movies... Please bring back the complete XP/classic UI.

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

Personally I would prefer that Microsoft take their time in making a new operating system like windows 8 & anyway I like how XP goes & I'm proud that I'm still using XP.

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

I will repeat,I'm still proud that I use windows XP & will keep on using it until it dies out. Anyway I have got several retail boxed XP's,retail vista ultimate & retail windows 7 ultimate.

 

[Guest]

If windows cannot fix what it keeps carrying over from version to version, then this upgrade means nothing to me. I thought that windows 7 will be a totally new core giving the stability of Apples OS or even Linux, but it does not seem that windows 8 will have anything in that direction besides that tile UI they are trying to force on Win Mobile users (thank god for Andoid). I hat Apple's guts like any other windows warrior, but MS is not making it easy to stay with them... forget all the glitter and glamour and make a freakin stable workable OS - otherwise I see myself moving to Linux...

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

forget all the glitter and glamour and make a freakin stable workable OS - otherwise I see myself moving to Linux...

Go, we won't miss you. Not once I had Win7 crash or BSOD on me. Not once. If you think Linux can replace Windows for you completely, I don't see why are you still not using it. IME, most of the people who are threatening to shift to Linux don't know the half of it. If Win7 crashes on you or is "unreliable", check your hardware. It's rock stable.

On a side note, by the time 7 came out Vista was running as smooth as 7 but no one cared because of the reputation it had built when it launched. (See amk-aka-phantom's dumb remark about Vista) I still have Vista installed in another computer and it runs fast like my 7 computer. I also know a lot of people who says Vista was terrible despite them NEVER even trying it.

Dumb? No u! Seriously, I had Vista pre-installed on my 1.8 GHz single-core Celeron M (1GB DDR2 RAM) laptop. First thing I did was re-install it - preinstalled version was filled with bloatware and outdated drivers, plus I wanted to get familiar with the process. It wasn't such a bad OS, after all, especially after all the tweaking I did to it (disabling junk services, etc.), but I only stayed on it because it took me some time to figure out how to integrate a proper SATA driver into an XP installation ("pure"" XP SP2 didn't detect any HDDs there, lol), after which I switched the laptop to XP. After that, I tried Win7 there and it was not as fast as XP but still better than Vista. IME, Vista was pretty much like 7 save some features, but for some reason it was quite a bit slower and way more unreliable (freezes during updates installation, LONG USB transfer times - 1GB once took about 10 minutes; needless to say, all the issues gone once I switched OS). So don't you dare accuse me of not trying it out. If I didn't have experience with it, I won't even bother to mention it.

 

[Guest]

LOL .... 1.8 CELERON ... *1gb ddr2* ... vista ... what did u expect dude ? Celeron can't run Counter-Strike 1.6 on windows *98* with 100 fps ... Stop commenting please

 

[Guest]

Dumb? No u! Seriously, I had Vista pre-installed on my 1.8 GHz single-core Celeron M (1GB DDR2 RAM) laptop.

Celeron CPU's are targeted for the low-end consumer market. Plus being a mobile CPU, it is significantly slower than it's desktop counter part. Despite being pre-installed, that laptop was NOT ready for Vista even though the GHz numbers passes the minimum requirements (We all know that 3.0GHz does not necessarily mean its faster than a 1.6GHz CPU right?). I bet you bought it a few months after Vista launched when all the OEM's were pushing the newest OS on all their devices because people love shiny new things. Just another reason why people hated Vista, being forced onto crap hardware just because it was new and would sell better than XP.

 

[alikum]

[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]I did just state in the first line of my previous comment that there will be multiple. That does obviously imply you can switch to the other UI.My complaint still stands that the tablet UI is default for all systems and it is not stated if you can configure the default or if you have to switch each time you boot (although I would hope that you can set your own default).[/citation]
I think this will be like Themes on W7 except that it will be called something else. I don't think MSFT would be that stupid to make you go through the UI change every boot.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

LOL .... 1.8 CELERON ... *1gb ddr2* ... vista ... what did u expect dude ? Celeron can't run Counter-Strike 1.6 on windows *98* with 100 fps ... Stop commenting please

YOU stop posting. I DID play CS there with 40+ FPS on maximum settings. (XP, though, lol)

Celeron CPU's are targeted for the low-end consumer market. Plus being a mobile CPU, it is significantly slower than it's desktop counter part. Despite being pre-installed, that laptop was NOT ready for Vista even though the GHz numbers passes the minimum requirements (We all know that 3.0GHz does not necessarily mean its faster than a 1.6GHz CPU right?). I bet you bought it a few months after Vista launched when all the OEM's were pushing the newest OS on all their devices because people love shiny new things. Just another reason why people hated Vista, being forced onto crap hardware just because it was new and would sell better than XP.

You bet is right, except one thing: I haven't bought it, my parents did. They don't know anything about computers and they told me to buzz off when I told the store that I don't want Vista there. My dad was like: "you don't know anything, in future everything will be written for Vista..." LOL! Shows what he knew. Of course that machine wasn't powerful enough for Vista, BUT Win7 was FASTER there, almost as fast as XP, in fact, so I don't see why I should use an OS that is inferior to 7 and is slower. And please stop explaining about CPUs, I'm messing with PCs for 8+ years and I'd never choose a Celeron laptop... it was forced upon me

Anyway, I'm sure that Vista was good when tweaked right, especially for high-end PCs, but only until Win7 rolled out. Now Vista is dead. Except for those people who had it before and don't need an upgrade; but nobody will buy it new if they know what's good for them.

And another thing: original (no service packs) Win7 doesn't have any problems with it. Vista, on the other hand? Quite a few. And they're NOT related to slow hardware. Just admit it, MS was diabolically cunning and released a beta of Windows 7 as a separate OS, so by the time 7 was out, it was fully supplied with drivers (most of Vista and 7 drivers are interchangeable), users who were familiar with the new interface (although it wasn't THAT different from XP) and a lot of feedback on what to improve. Though, it spoiled their reputation quite a bit - most of the people I've met think that Win7 is same as Vista if not worse, thanks to the same GUI. U MAD BRO?

 

[razor512]

so basically they are taking the windows 7 OS and adding the windows phone 7 os on top of it causing it to be more bloated and resource unfriendly. Next vista/ windows me in the works here

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]IME, Vista was pretty much like 7 save some features, but for some reason it was quite a bit slower and way more unreliable (freezes during updates installation, LONG USB transfer times - 1GB once took about 10 minutes[/citation]
RTM/Gold Vista did have a bunch of issues, most glaring of which was slow file transfers. Most of the issues were fixed by SP1. I'm still using Vista 64-bit on my desktop. My laptop WAS dual booting Vista and 7, but the video chip is dying.

Personally, I like a lot of the color scheme/UI of Vista over 7 (Win Explorer has color and icons in its task toolbar, folders pane has auto horizontal scrolling, Explorer sort headings are visible in all views (not just "details" view), the taskbar/startmenu UI). Visually the only thing I like better in 7 is the new Aero functionality (snapping, controls on the taskbar thumbnails).