Windows 8 To Go Up...A Lot

One picture is worth a thousand words. So:

http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/win8_screenshot_IE10_web.jpg

Look at that for five seconds, then tell me how I would access the preferences dialog.

Edit: As far as Windows 8 catching on goes, I have one major reason to dislike the OS - it uses an app store, and the app store is the only way for end users to install WinRT applications, a la iOS walled garden stupidity. Seeing as Win32 will probably go the way of the dodo at some point, I do not like this at all.

 

And who forgot about xp?
XP was a disaster until sp2 came in. Do I need to mention the blaster worm that was so wide spread that would infect any xp/xp sp1 machine the instant that a internet connection was established and forced MS to preactivate the firewall in xp SP2 and later windows versions?
For not mentioning XP's initial sales
http://news.cnet.com/Early-XP-sales-less-than-stellar/2100-1040_3-275293.html
If 8 is similar to XP... we will have to wait until 8 SP2 or win9 for a decent OS.
http://windowssecrets.com/top-story/the-promise-of-xp-service-pack-2/

Panagiotis

 

Agreed. lol

No. As my link shows, GPU acceleration, in Windows 8, is global. It works for all themes, even with all effects disabled. This is not how Windows 7 DWM works.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh848042(v=vs.85).aspx

Thank you. You can give me a new Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 13 and all is settled. lol

 

I don't care if you don't care. I'm just waiting for better stats to be posted by others - and you are the one who said that they could post them.

 

I could argue with you for 60 pages, if you wished. Your arguments are that weak. However, the moderation would end up deleting or closing the thread at some point, so it's a bit futile.

 

Oh, since the GPU acceleration is enabled, it doesn't matter how many graphical effects you have enabled, eh? So, why is that MS has disabled some effects, just for fun? And why does it still have the "performance options"? Pray tell, if in a game you activate MSAA and AAx16 is it the same as AAx2 just because GPU acceleration is active in both cases?

I didn't speak about GPU acceleration, but about graphics. So they thought to make this because they thought it was more beautiful and modern? Or is it because it makes for faster rendering (<cough>tabets)?

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=236442

And this is a purely cosmetic setting?

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/disable-visual-effects-windows

You wish!

Whether my arguments are weak or not, i certainly don't expect you to tell me. We do our job, moderators can do theirs. I am surprised too that a topic about MS is still open too, but hey, let's take advantage of it.

 

My point is that the GPU acceleration in Windows 8 has far more to it:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/...celerating-everything-windows-8-graphics.aspx

The substitution of Aero Glass isn't the reason for the better performance, unlike you seem to think. Read that blog post and you may understand some of the real reasons.

 

No, i am sure glass, drop shadows and rounded edges(damn) in Windows were simply judged "ugly", so removed. That blog post mostly talks about the metro graphics and if anything, it is interesting for very low spec systems.

 

I think you should read that blog post completely as well as more documentation on MSDN. It goes far beyond the Modern UI. Here is a part of its conclusion:

"As you can see, we’ve done a lot of work to enable a very fast and smoothly animated user experience in Windows 8. From new ways to measure our progress, to optimizations for mainstream uses of our graphics platform, and new hardware features, we’ve created the best Windows graphics platform yet. And of course, we continue to push the envelope on immersive, three-dimensional gaming, with great performance and new features such as stereoscopic 3D."

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/...celerating-everything-windows-8-graphics.aspx

....

The mentioned removed particularities of the previous theme weren't judged ugly like you repeat with sarcasm (or irony?) time and time again. The truth is: they simply adjusted the desktop theme to be more visually compatible with Modern UI and the changes reflect that they tried to do that without losing sight of the goals of Aero.

"...Aero was designed to help people focus less on the window chrome itself, and more on the content within the window. It draws the eye away from the title bar and window frames, and towards what is valuable and what an app is about..."

"...We have made a number of improvements to the desktop visual appearance in Windows 8. Although we wanted the desktop to feel familiar, we also wanted to take some ideas from our new design language and apply them where we could. We applied the principles of “clean and crisp” when updating window and taskbar chrome..."

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/18/creating-the-windows-8-user-experience.aspx

 

Wild Hunter, one can write 100 pages trying to do pubblicity to its product. At the end of the day though, if things end up as he says, with so much improvements, they 'd show up in tests, right? Why don't they? Where's the best Windows graphics patform yet, when in tests it doesn't show up? Why is Cinebench lower than Win7? Why can't desktop applications render faster in 8? Is the blog going to explain that with a 100 page article?

Yeah, they 're not ""ugly, sorry, they are "dated and cheezy"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57437562-92/microsoft-opines-vista-was-cheesy-drops-aero/

Seriously, if all the "improvements" advertized by MS were there, the OS would be flying now. As for why they killed aero, one can say whatever he likes. I know one thing. The more visual effects you disable, the "faster" it feels (it isn't, but it feels). There are ever tweaking programs that can change the lag of pop ups, menu scrolling etc. But when you REALLY have this "best ever graphics platform", you also show it in tests. Which they don't.

I suppose you have another article from their blog that explains why they don't. I bet they won't write in their blog "Metro was thought for tablets. Tablets can't run heavy graphics, too bad for their battery, so we must tell you that aero was cheezy and dated and we wanted it to be clean and crispy".

 

Benchmarks show very little difference for the full system - no surprise. Interestingly, browser benchmarks have shown differences between Windows 7 and Windows 8.

 

For now, the graphics performance will be similar (or slightly better) to what Windows 7 provides.

The difference is going to increase substantially when new drivers (mainly, GPU drivers) and new games and software start making use of the new optimizations of Windows 8.

http://arstechnica.com/information-...our-benches-measuring-windows-8s-performance/

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-8-gaming-performance,3331.html

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/chuckw/archive/2012/03/23/desktop-games-on-windows-8-consumer-preview.aspx

 

Driver differences maybe? Most browsers use hardware acceleration now.

 

So, for now, the best graphics platform ever, performs similar, slightly better or slightly worse (there, i fixed it for you), than Win7.

BUT, there is still hope that the drivers aren't really good enough for 8 to this day. OK. Hope dies always for last.

I am just amazed that with all these graphics optimizations, we still have to wait... Damn...

 

For those trying to convince others that their OS is better, allow me to quote Jonathan Swift: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."

 

I actually preferred it to previous operating systems. I loved its gaudy colourfulness. I probably have questionable aesthetic tastes though. I thought Vista was beautiful & Seven looks pleasant enough. Either way, I don't particularly like the overall look of Win 8.

 

I love aero, I still think that it looks great. I am not too impressed with Microsoft's marketing division these days. I think that they're probably the cheezy & dated one's.

 

I really disliked the XP look for a long time, but finally got used to it when I moved from Win2k to XP. My all time favorite was Win2k, basic and simple. But I also like Win 7 look a lot and am fine with it. I'll be polite, and won't comment on 8.

 

Aero at the time was regarded as the much needed reply of MS to the Macs and even Linux. Linux had gone far to compiz, with the cube-desktops. And they could do transparencies. My problem with aero was initially the "smooth motions" of windows, which made them open slower compared to XP. But once i learnt how to minimize these effects through performance options, it's nice. It still looks modern. I mean, if you take a look at Linux, which is "geeky", they have similar transparencies.

I didn't like either the initial XP theme, although better than 98. I really liked it when MS released the "official" Royale theme (it was polished and...thinner) and then got some other custom themes with uxtheme patcher and switching between them it was nice. The other day i stumbled on a proggie that puts aero (more or less) into XP!

 

I wonder which Windows version it will be before Windows opens & closes in under one second?

 

No it is real.

 

I've seen Ubuntu boot in < 5 seconds on high-end SSDs, and that was several years ago. It would not surprise me if Windows 7 could do the same as of right now, given sufficiently fast hardware.

 

On the one with optimized hibernation. Because that's how it does it. It's not your classic "full shut down" you knew, where the computer flushes everything and starts from scratch.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/olivnie/archive/2012/12/14/windows-8-fast-boot.aspx

If they optimize further hibernation and throw more services to "delayed start", i don't know about 1 second, but they could make it appear even faster.

With my low end SSD, i boot to Win7 in about 15 seconds.

P.S.: I have hibernation disabled in Win7, it helps the SSD to take less hits.

 

Just for the history, what MS did, wasn't even "breaking new ground". My motherboard manufacturer, was doing the same much earlier. There are boards from at least 2 years ago listed there.

http://www.asrock.com/feature/instantboot/index.asp

I just don't want to use the feature.

 

Win 7 starts pretty fast on my desktop. I just wondered that if with every release of Windows, if it gets progressively faster, by what Windows version will it become almost instantaneous?

This was essentially a rhetorical question though.