Tech Opinions on Windows 8?

[Zevinity]

I installed the Windows Developer Preview a month ago, just to try it out. So far, my opinions are mixed. They have improved a lot of Windows 7 features, but the new start menu takes some time getting used to. I didn't want to disable the new start menu because I wanted to see how efficient it was, using it on a daily basis. Even though I did get used to it, I still prefer the normal start menu, but I can see why it would work well on tablets and touch screens. The developer preview isn't the final product, so many things could change when the official beta comes out. In the meantime, I'll stick to using Windows 7. Has anyone else tried out the developers preview? If so, what are your opinions on it?


Here's a list of the new features.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_8

If you would like to try out the developers preview, here's the link to download it.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/br229516

 

[Ewan]

I'd give it a 9.999/10. I love all the programs it has.

Unlike MAC. Gawd. I'd give that 0.0001/10.

I am particularly impressed by how it handles daggerfalls.

 

[ribbit]

I haven't personally used Windows 8, but I really don't like how every OS is turning into a tablet based OS. The new start menu is terrible and I don't plan on using it if I ever upgrade to 8 because I hear you can turn it off somehow. But then when you do that, it's essentially a Windows 7 service pack that comes at the price of over 50-100 dollars and a waste of my money. The few features added into 8 aren't worth the upgrade. Windows 9 is a maybe.

 

[Zevinity]

I haven't personally used Windows 8, but I really don't like how every OS is turning into a tablet based OS. The new start menu is terrible and I don't plan on using it if I ever upgrade to 8 because I hear you can turn it off somehow. But then when you do that, it's essentially a Windows 7 service pack that comes at the price of over 50-100 dollars and a waste of my money. The few features added into 8 aren't worth the upgrade. Windows 9 is a maybe.

I have to agree. I believe there should be separate operating systems for PCs and tablets, or at least different versions optimized for different devices. You never know, Microsoft might even do that. If not, I'll stick with Windows 7 until I have a reason to switch.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

I haven't tried it. I'm still using XP. I didn't like what I saw from Vista and though Windows 7 is decidedly better I held off upgrading. Its possible there are still undocumented win7 bugs relating to loading of video / youtube files & other errata. I've seen people have issues with things like flash that didn't seem to conform to a windows cross platform type issue. Blah, blah.

As for win8, I'm excited about the transition they seem to be making from proprietary & closed OS to customizable technologies like javascript. I've long thought normal OS interfaces lacked a learning curve & contained certain functionality & productivity issues. Tech savvy individuals shouldn't interface on the same mundane point-and-click level as the computer illiterate.

Not much to say, rlly. I hope its awesome & that its awesomeness inspires open source OS developers to up their game. Which in turns inspires win devs to up their game. That would be really nice.

 

[Belazor et Britannia]

I haven't tried it. I'm still using XP. I didn't like what I saw from Vista and though Windows 7 is decidedly better I held off upgrading. Its possible there are still undocumented win7 bugs relating to loading of video / youtube files & other errata. I've seen people have issues with things like flash that didn't seem to conform to a windows cross platform type issue. Blah, blah.

You do realise that bugs in YT playback is Flash and not OS related, right?

Was your system built in 2006 or later? If so, you are wasting money by using WinXP.


---
I'll not be using the new Start menu either, I reckon. I'm intrigued by the new file system, though...

 

[Richard B Riddick]

You do realise that bugs in YT playback is Flash and not OS related, right?

It affects win7 and vista, and doesn't affect xp which may suggest its somewhat os centric in nature.

To give you another example of how flash bugs can be os related, iphone and other apple products have flash locked out by default. Apple also refuses to disclose details on how to implement graphics acceleration which causes flash to run extremely slow on OSX.

In a sense, you can't blame developers for os vendors like microsoft and apple failing or flat out refusing to provide proper documentation.

How does using xp 'waste money' exactly?

 

[Steve-O]

It affects win7 and vista, and doesn't affect xp which may suggest its somewhat os centric in nature.

To give you another example of how flash bugs can be os related, iphone and other apple products have flash locked out by default. Apple also refuses to disclose details on how to implement graphics acceleration which causes flash to run extremely slow on OSX.

In a sense, you can't blame developers for os vendors like microsoft and apple failing or flat out refusing to provide proper documentation.

How does using xp 'waste money' exactly?

flash runs ok on my macbook but i do agree with the rubbish no flash thing on ios devices

i used windows 8 for quiet a bit a few months ago on a virtual computer and on a old laptop.. got to say it pretty good but it had a few problems... the main one was updates.. man was they buggy.. never workedXD.. a few features i didn't like.. no normal start menu was like rubbish man and the metro apps their no need for them on a standad laptop.. but this is gonna be a great tablet os and that what windows 8 gonna be aimed at... let just hope that when it goes beta they added a few features for mormal pc users

 

[Belazor et Britannia]

It affects win7 and vista, and doesn't affect xp which may suggest its somewhat os centric in nature.

That's hardly the fault of the OS. That's like saying "Skyrim only crashes twice a day on XP, it must be a better OS".

No, it just means they tested it on XP more than they did any other OS.

In a sense, you can't blame developers for os vendors like microsoft and apple failing or flat out refusing to provide proper documentation.

The apples and oranges saying comes to mind.

You appear to be saying that extremely rare cases of playback issues on modern OSes is the same as the OS developer refusing to publicise APIs that would speed up the app.

Which, y'know, is kind of a dumb argument.

How does using xp 'waste money' exactly?

Is that an actual question or do you take me for a troll?

I'll pretend it's an actual question (ignorance isn't a crime unless you were actually claiming Windows XP was a better choice for a computer built after 2006).

1. Performance #1
   Windows XP, for all intents and purposes, does not support 64bit CPUs. Windows XP x64 is a buggy, broken, unsupported piece of shit (see the Known Issues block of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_64-Bit_Edition )
   This means that you are limited to 4GB total RAM (VRAM and DDR RAM) due to the limitations of a 32bit integer.
   In other words, if you have a 1GB graphics card, and 4 GB RAM installed, your OS will pretend like you have 3 GB RAM installed.
   Wasted money.
   Not to mention all the security features like virtualisation techniques that XP cannot support due to the RAM constructions, or have been embedded in newer CPUs that Windows XP won't support.
2. Performance #2
   Windows XP does not correctly utilise RAM to pre-load or cache program files like Vista and Windows 7 does. This means your apps open slower and run slower.
   The Linux kernel has had RAM cache utilisation for a long time, and it was introduced with Windows Vista. Due to the ignorance of computer users and a "bug" in the Task Manager for Windows Vista, most users incorrectly believed that Vista was taking up 3x RAM than XP did, when in truth it was simply more efficient. 7 further improved on this by cutting down and limiting the amount of used RAM displayed.
   Out of my 16GB RAM, I'm using 8GB and 8GB is used to cache my apps that I do not have open but I'm frequently accessing, to speed up their loading time.
   Remember kids, unused RAM is wasted RAM.
3. Application Compatibility
   Windows 7 is more or less fully backwards compatible with Windows XP, even going so far as to provide virtualisation techniques (for Business and higher versions, I believe) for those apps that have been hardcoded to work only on Windows XP.
   On the flip side, you will never find an app created today that will only work on XP, and in fact more and more developers are cutting XP from their supported OSes list due to its market share dropping a good 5-10% every month or so.

Simply put, unless all you're doing with your computer is browse the internet and check your email, or you happen to enjoy meticulously killing processes if you want to play Oblivion or any newer games, then putting Windows XP on modern hardware makes you a dumbass.


Sure, if you are still rocking 512 MB RAM and a Pentium 4, you're going to want to install Windows XP...

 

[Richard B Riddick]

That's hardly the fault of the OS. That's like saying "Skyrim only crashes twice a day on XP, it must be a better OS".

No, it just means they tested it on XP more than they did any other OS.

Windows ME is known for crashing & I think most would agree that implies it is a shit OS.

Win 95 is known for having a TCP/IP stack originally unable to handle packets larger than 64 kb -- which would cause it to crash.

OS implementation is a factor in terms of software crashing and burning.

Would you say Vista screwing up doesn't imply its a shit OS?

The apples and oranges saying comes to mind.

You appear to be saying that extremely rare cases of playback issues on modern OSes is the same as the OS developer refusing to publicise APIs that would speed up the app.

Which, y'know, is kind of a dumb argument.

O RLLY? What's "dumb" about it?

Performance #1
Windows XP, for all intents and purposes, does not support 64bit CPUs.

Have you seen 64 versus 32 bit OS benchmarks?

http://tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu-904-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmarks
http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmark.html
http://blog.tune-up.com/windows-insights/32-bit-vs-64-bit-more-bit-more-performance/

Etcetera.

Maybe you can justify your assumption that 64 bit OS extensions offer some noticeable performance upgrade?

Windows XP x64 is a buggy, broken, unsupported piece of shit (see the Known Issues block of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions#Windows_XP_64-Bit_Edition )

As per above, if XP 64 bit doesn't offer noticeable performance enhancements over 32 bit, there's little reason to use 64 bit OS extensions?

This means that you are limited to 4GB total RAM (VRAM and DDR RAM) due to the limitations of a 32bit integer.
In other words, if you have a 1GB graphics card, and 4 GB RAM installed, your OS will pretend like you have 3 GB RAM installed.
Wasted money.

For certain power users & high end gamers you may be correct that the hardware limitations would be a factor. For someone like me I can get by with 4 GB just fine.

If you have more than 4 GB -- can you justify having that much hardware? Do you actually use it? In 90% of cases, I would guess: no.

Not to mention all the security features like virtualisation techniques that XP cannot support due to the RAM constructions, or have been embedded in newer CPUs that Windows XP won't support.

A. I almost never get malware & XP has only crashed maybe once in the past 2-3 years. Its stable as is, assuming I'm not infected with rootkits.

B. Which CPUs does XP "not" support? Virtualization is implemented on the hardware level on the CPU, IIRC.

[*]Performance #2
Windows XP does not correctly utilise RAM to pre-load or cache program files like Vista and Windows 7 does. This means your apps open slower and run slower.

Based on ______?

How doe XP "incorrectly" cache apps?

The Linux kernel has had RAM cache utilisation for a long time, and it was introduced with Windows Vista.

Have you ever wondered why Linux has no defrag option?

Saying Linux utilizes cache well, is kind of ridiculous bub considering its disk memory implementation is a million times worse than Windows 95.

XP utilizes cache 'ok'. There certainly do not seem to be OS benchmarks (I've seen) which suggest otherwise. Although I admit I don't quite remember what the results of XP versus win7 benchmarks I've seen or even if I have seen any.

Due to the ignorance of computer users and a "bug" in the Task Manager for Windows Vista, most users incorrectly believed that Vista was taking up 3x RAM than XP did, when in truth it was simply more efficient. 7 further improved on this by cutting down and limiting the amount of used RAM displayed.

Considering the non-optimizing rapid development cycle microsoft OS developers use, I would guess Vista and Win7 do use 3 times the amount of RAM that XP does.

The more rigorous and hardware intensive interface (aero) alone would suggest a larger RAM footprint.

I would guess the naysayers who attribute larger RAM consumption to a "display error" are apologists and lip service sycophants of the lowest order.

Out of my 16GB RAM, I'm using 8GB and 8GB is used to cache my apps that I do not have open but I'm frequently accessing, to speed up their loading time.
Remember kids, unused RAM is wasted RAM.

Maybe if you listed what was consuming your RAM, we'd get a better idea of the validity of your arguments.

[*]Application Compatibility
Windows 7 is more or less fully backwards compatible with Windows XP, even going so far as to provide virtualisation techniques (for Business and higher versions, I believe) for those apps that have been hardcoded to work only on Windows XP.
On the flip side, you will never find an app created today that will only work on XP, and in fact more and more developers are cutting XP from their supported OSes list due to its market share dropping a good 5-10% every month or so.
[/LIST]

Not really an issue, bro.

Simply put, unless all you're doing with your computer is browse the internet and check your email, or you happen to enjoy meticulously killing processes if you want to play Oblivion or any newer games, then putting Windows XP on modern hardware makes you a dumbass.

Heh. I'm playing Final Fantasy 5. When I'm done, I may go back and play FF 1-4.

That's about the extent of my gaming aspirations, atm. I also would like to emulate gamecube and some older generation consoles to play some of the games I've missed.

Not so much enamored with or interested in playing MW3 and other games...

 

[Belazor et Britannia]

O RLLY? What's "dumb" about it?

The fact that you are talking about two very different things. Windows has hardware acceleration APIs available, modern Flash versions (I don't know what versions of Flash Windows XP gets) take advantage of it. Has done since 10.1 I believe.

Any playback issues on certain Windows versions is down to the binaries built for that specific OS.

OS X versions of Flash not running as smooth as they can is down to the hardware acceleration API issue you mentioned.

Are you seriously saying that those are identical issues?

Have you seen 64 versus 32 bit OS benchmarks?

http://tuxradar.com/content/ubuntu-904-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmarks
http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit-benchmark.html
http://blog.tune-up.com/windows-insights/32-bit-vs-64-bit-more-bit-more-performance/

Etcetera.

Maybe you can justify your assumption that 64 bit OS extensions offer some noticeable performance upgrade?

As per above, if XP 64 bit doesn't offer noticeable performance enhancements over 32 bit, there's little reason to use 64 bit OS extensions?

There's two flaws in your argument:

1. Benchmarks are not indicative of real world performance.
Let me give you some anecdotal evidence that happened to me a couple months ago;
I was playing Rift (a modern MMO) and whenever my job required me to open a support ticket, my browser would become horribly slow and stutter while loading. Upon investigation, I had hit my physical memory limit (8GB at the time) due to the fact that I have a large amount of work-related apps open 24/7 (to make it easier for me to switch between work and play).
I then installed another 8GB RAM, lo and behold my computer sped up again and has not hit the physical memory limit since.

Do you mean to tell me that this would become evident in any benchmark you can conjure up from Google?
I would venture a guess that no, no it wouldn't.


2. Related to #1's anecdotal evidence, I notice that none of your benchmarks were tested on machines that had hit the physical address extension limit.

If you were to try to play a demanding game like Skyrim on a machine with 512 MB RAM on a 32bit computer, vs 8 GB RAM on a 64bit computer, I can promise you that 64bit would win.


This isn't even mentioning how none of your benchmarks are newer than 2 years, with the worst offender being 5 years old. I'm not going to claim performance has improved, but it's certainly a possibility.


However, like you say later on that I will comment on next, for your needs, 32bit WinXP is perfectly fine. I have never attempted to make an argument against this.

For certain power users & high end gamers you may be correct that the hardware limitations would be a factor. For someone like me I can get by with 4 GB just fine.

Like I said, I have never claimed that WinXP is not fine for your uses.

That being said, I must admit that I made an assumption that since you were posting on a gaming forum and talking about OS performance, you were a power user (i.e. someone who tries to get the maximum performance out of their expensive hardware).

It's clear now that this is not the case and I apologise for making the assumption.

If you have more than 4 GB -- can you justify having that much hardware? Do you actually use it? In 90% of cases, I would guess: no.

Then you would guess wrong

I leave WLM, Thunderbird, Firefox Beta, Firefox Aurora, Chrome, Dreamweaver, SmartFTP, Beyond Compare, EditPlus, Paint, Command Line, Skype, Steam, Nexus Mod Manager, uTorrent, Winamp, and various other background (invisible) processes open 24/7 and if I tab out of Skyrim, those apps are as snappy as if Skyrim was closed

This is 100% RAM based.

If you hit your physical RAM limitation, Windows will write the remaining cache into the page file. The PF is faster than fetching the files from random locations on the HDD(s) but is obviously slower than RAM.

That's why - if you were a power-gamer - you'll see other apps being slow and your HDD making lots of noise when you're suddenly accessing them again after running a demanding application.
That's Windows having unloaded your other apps from RAM and is now putting them back in there.

A. I almost never get malware & XP has only crashed maybe once in the past 2-3 years. Its stable as is, assuming I'm not infected with rootkits.

Course rootkits make up for a large share of the malware issue; http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9218722/Windows_XP_PCs_breed_rootkit_infections

The lack of UAC also makes Windows XP more susceptible to infection, but since you don't appear to get infected (that you know of, anyway, but the same can be said for any OS) that's only a valid point for the "masses".

B. Which CPUs does XP "not" support? Virtualization is implemented on the hardware level on the CPU, IIRC.

Multi-core CPUs aren't well supported in Windows XP, often requiring separate fixes to be installed (http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...p-multi-core-config-does-your-oem-do-you.html etc), which is my main beef with it since I do in fact possess a high-end multi-core CPU.

Again, probably not anything you need to worry about, but as I clarified earlier in this post, I was trying to be more general in terms of people who buy a computer today.

Based on ______?

How doe XP "incorrectly" cache apps?

Well, you have stuff like this:
http://superuser.com/questions/75668/how-much-more-ram-does-windows-7-use-than-windows-xp
Where multiple users say the same thing I do.

Then there's this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_I/O_technologies#SuperFetch
Which is a continuation of a Windows XP feature and has since been improved.

Etc.

Have you ever wondered why Linux has no defrag option?

Saying Linux utilizes cache well, is kind of ridiculous bub considering its disk memory implementation is a million times worse than Windows 95.

Because the extFS was written more intelligently than NTFS, it has indexing built into its core. I think that's the best way I can explain it.

Fragmentation is basically the OS having to search a long time to find the files in question, whereas extFS has indexes that tells the OS where exactly on the HDD the file in question is, thus dramatically reducing lookup time.

Maybe if you listed what was consuming your RAM, we'd get a better idea of the validity of your arguments.

WLM, Thunderbird, Firefox Beta (~35 tabs), Firefox Aurora (~15 tabs), Chrome (5-20 tabs), Dreamweaver, SmartFTP, Beyond Compare, EditPlus, Paint, Command Line, Skype, Steam, Nexus Mod Manager, uTorrent, Winamp, and various other background (invisible) processes

 

[Steve-O]

that a lot of programs but i gather that what you have to do when ur a web designer...

but i really don't see how people could say xp is better than windows 7... vista yh anyday but windows 7 is a great operating system..... i cant see how people could say that..... but i guess that some people are like that ..... but windows 7 is a grwat os.. soo is xp, and mac osx... vista not cuz well... it was vista

i got one thing to say..... i used an xp 64 bit machine for a bit last month... it failed like proper badly at running 3ds max on it... yet i never had a problem with it on my windows 7 machine.. and that has less ram .... only time i had problems with 3ds max on windows 7 is it crashes when i mesh smooth too much.. but that the program falut not windows XD