For all Win8+Metro haters

[Moonchild]

Actually Moonchild, the most relevant parts of Windows 8 are the under the hood changes, as the kernel is far more lightweight, with better resource usage, a higher performing WDDM, but all that is publicly clouded through a new UI, which I personally dislike.

Ignoring the fact that your post reads almost like a sales pitch for Microsoft and Stardock, I'll say that the reports that are out there about this (e.g. Tom's Hardware) compare the running processes and resident memory use - Sure, Windows 8 preview may have fewer services started by default (since Vista and 7 tend to go a little overboard on that) but that doesn't mean that "the kernel is more lightweight"; they are completely unrelated statements.

"It will run" does not equal "it will run well" - it's more a statement that "we are not increasing RAM requirements this time" but instead the focus is on another segment of the hardware market with Win 8 -- touch screens. To use Win 8 fully as intended you're practically forced to buy new hardware. No different than previous versions of Windows; it's just part of the sales strategy.

I personally have found no notable "under the hood" gain when looking at Win 8 preview. It may be that the installer is smarter and limits bloat on low resource machines when the OS is first installed (since they seem to focus more on mobile computing with Win 8, they HAVE to) but other gains are not found.

"Higher performing WDDM" - care to give a detailed example using comparable applications?

EDIT:
Another little tidbit:

What makes Windows 8 special in this [upgrade] sequence is that Microsoft is not addressing current Windows owners (other than those with Windows 7) and believes there is enough value in this new OS that people will, in fact, buy a new PC to get it. Such a strategy has failed more often in the past than has succeeded. There is plenty of risk in Windows 8 to suggest that the release of the new OS is not a slam dunk. For example, the received value of Windows 8 is in the Metro UI, the value of which is particularly in horizontal touch screens such as tablets. However, the usability is rather questionable on horizontal screens that require the user to reach across a keyboard.

[Ryrynz]

Might just end up being the first MS OS I actually skip. Will wait and check out benchmarks when final is out. People talk about the Kernel improvements but if there's little gained there's no point I won't bother.

One thing I quite dislike is the things they're taking away, they took away in Vista, they took away in 7 and now taking more away in 8.. replacing it with fluff us desktop users don't need.

Windows 8 ideally needs to be tailored to desktop users as well. Perhaps things will be better when the service pack comes out? Feedback on this from customers is going to be interesting.

I got enough people complaining about Vista being different (It wasn't really) 8 is gonna be great for combining our devices together but it's not the desktop OS we need right now.

I hope it gets some polish, I could always wait another two or three years for the next one. Ideally I want a combination of 7 & 8 and works exactly like 7 does.

[ninaholic]

of course, win7 is already doing everything i want. so wont be upgrading that. Maybe when dx11.1 takes off seriously in games. till then, win8 is meh-ish.

Have you read this? It's a bit of interesting info on how Microsoft wants to expand DirectX support in Windows 8:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012 ... phics.aspx

EDIT: I forgot to add that the x86 version of Windows 8 also restores 16-bit app support, but there is still no word on restoring HAL back, which I find absolutely essential, but something that's been unavailable for the past 2 main OSes.

From what I read, this will only work in the 32-bit version of Windows 8:

http://www.askvg.com/windows-8-comes-wi ... n-support/
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=16-bit+in+Windows+8

Not much different than Windows 7 then, I think, unless it works with 16-bit graphics mode Full Screen apps by default.

[Night Wing]

I wouldn't have Windows 8 on either of my two computers even if Windows 8 was given to me for free.

[stravinsky]

@ ninaholic :

yes that is an interesting info.
MOAR FPS for MS-Word ?

I wouldn't have Windows 8 on either of my two computers even if Windows 8 was given to me for free.

i have installed the RC of Win8, and well ,its more dumbed down than Win7. specially the task manager feels more cluttered and dumbed down at the same time.


maybe i will get used to it till then i am waiting for win7 SP2.

[tribaljet]

If you remember Microsoft made it public that Windows 8 will not playback DVDs and media unless you pay for the biggest version (maybe Ultimate?). Lots of computers here are sold with Windows 7 starter version, which just pretty useless you even have troubles for change the wallpaper without get a nag screen about "upgrade" to Windows 7 home.

For some odd reason my computer which is Phenom X4 with 8GB RAM works better with Windows XP 64 than Windows 7 64. So I cannot think that the core improvements always made a better experience. Drivers are another concern since hardware makers expect that we change all the equipment: Printers, scanners, cameras, etc. One of the reasons that I didn't used a lot Windows Vista was the lack of support of my "legacy" hardware in Vista, much less is supported in Windows 7.

Now windows 8 seems to demand me to buy a touch screen for work, that means to replace something that is not broken, as usual in new Windows versions. Like a lot of people, I prefer stick with Windows XP until the support is gone in 2014. Windows 7 looks nice but I just have it as "Plan B", Windows 8 even haven't a backup plan assigned.

So, I was away from the forums for a while and it seems a lot of replies went on

Let's begin then. First, only Windows 8 Pro will have the DVD playback feature that is going to be sold as an addon. And before people start whining about it being sold as an addon, codec licensing costs money, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to compare how much a retail Windows 7 Home Premium goes for when compared to any Windows 8 PC consumer version.

Second, every single computer that had Windows 7 has system wide performance improvements. However, AMD CPUs can be quite finnicky, especially if they operate outside of default settings, especially when users try to access damaged silicon sections, namely X3 CPUs unlocked as X4 CPUs, X4 CPUs unlocked as X6 CPUs, etc, so different system drivers for such specs need to be tested in order to find the ideal set up for that specific machine.
About drivers, at the present time most Vista drivers work on Windows 7 and many Windows 7 drivers work on the non RTM Windows 8. Driver concern was quite valid during the transition of legacy Windows XP to Windows Vista, as hardware manufacturers sure were lazy in terms of releasing drivers under the new architecture.

I absolutely care nothing for anything touch-enabled. Like I said on a previous post, once the new Windows UI (which is no longer called Metro due to a legal dispute) is disabled, Windows 8 basically becomes what I expected it to be, a refined Windows 7, both lighter on resources and higher performing to boot.

[tribaljet]

Ignoring the fact that your post reads almost like a sales pitch for Microsoft and Stardock, I'll say that the reports that are out there about this (e.g. Tom's Hardware) compare the running processes and resident memory use - Sure, Windows 8 preview may have fewer services started by default (since Vista and 7 tend to go a little overboard on that) but that doesn't mean that "the kernel is more lightweight"; they are completely unrelated statements.

"It will run" does not equal "it will run well" - it's more a statement that "we are not increasing RAM requirements this time" but instead the focus is on another segment of the hardware market with Win 8 -- touch screens. To use Win 8 fully as intended you're practically forced to buy new hardware. No different than previous versions of Windows; it's just part of the sales strategy.

I personally have found no notable "under the hood" gain when looking at Win 8 preview. It may be that the installer is smarter and limits bloat on low resource machines when the OS is first installed (since they seem to focus more on mobile computing with Win 8, they HAVE to) but other gains are not found.

"Higher performing WDDM" - care to give a detailed example using comparable applications?

EDIT:
Another little tidbit:

What makes Windows 8 special in this [upgrade] sequence is that Microsoft is not addressing current Windows owners (other than those with Windows 7) and believes there is enough value in this new OS that people will, in fact, buy a new PC to get it. Such a strategy has failed more often in the past than has succeeded. There is plenty of risk in Windows 8 to suggest that the release of the new OS is not a slam dunk. For example, the received value of Windows 8 is in the Metro UI, the value of which is particularly in horizontal touch screens such as tablets. However, the usability is rather questionable on horizontal screens that require the user to reach across a keyboard.

Ignoring the fact that you just insulted me, online reviews tend to show less sides of what the product actually is.

IF a fresh Windows 8 installation has its UI left untouched, then having touch-enabled hardware most certainly makes the user experience quite improved, and that's where UI customization comes in. And yes, if computer A runs Windows 7 acceptably, then it will run Windows 8 better. And yes, the kernel is optimized, and if you think it's a mere question of services, then do replicate service number and load and find out if Windows 8 performs like Windows 7 when it's artificially configured to do so.

WDDM 1.2 (Windows 8) has, in theory, improve IGP/GPU usage for both OS GUI and standalone 2D/3D apps. In practice, that can be reproduced, through measurement apps monitoring both desktop and app performance, in which minimum and maximum frames per second have consistently increased, therefore increasing average frames per second.

Now, let's check issues. No proper start menu? Check. New UI that requires users to go through a learning curve? Check. Overall usability of default UI is touch-centric? Check. All those issues can be fixed with a single app. Oh, and Windows 8 is making the newbie-power user gap even wider, therefore keyboard shortcuts become not just a recommendation but a bare necessity for maximizing usability, that is unless further customization is done, all being quite possible.

[tribaljet]

From what I read, this will only work in the 32-bit version of Windows 8:

http://www.askvg.com/windows-8-comes-wi ... n-support/
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=16-bit+in+Windows+8

Not much different than Windows 7 then, I think, unless it works with 16-bit graphics mode Full Screen apps by default.

Indeed it only works with the 32-bit version :/ If such feature was added, then it sure would be a good decision to add it on 64-bit versions as well, considering the tipping point has already been reached regarding the 32-bit - 64-bit ratio.

[stravinsky]

AFAIK, 32 bit windows has always been able to run 16 bit applications, so nothing special in that.

@ Moonchild, Tribaljet :

Windows 2d performance can be benchmarked.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/2d-windows-gdi,2539.html

gives some info about windows 2d performance. its oldish, but gives the benchmark software for 2d performance. Just test this on win8.

[tribaljet]

Well, true 16-bit support ended with Windows XP due to how NTVDM works, and emulators like DOSBox only go so far.

I had read that article around its original date, and it's quite an eye opener for a lot of people. But then again, that would open the can of worms that is IGP/GPU driver development, how the hardware is artificially impaired, performance and feature wise, among other things.

[Moonchild]

Second, every single computer that had Windows 7 has system wide performance improvements. However, AMD CPUs can be quite finnicky, especially if they operate outside of default settings, especially when users try to access damaged silicon sections, namely X3 CPUs unlocked as X4 CPUs, X4 CPUs unlocked as X6 CPUs, etc, so different system drivers for such specs need to be tested in order to find the ideal set up for that specific machine.

I'm surprised you even bring this up. If you overclock, unlock, push your hardware beyond what it was sold for, then you are on your own. You buy an X3, then don't try to use it as an X4. You want an X4, pay for it. And you're blaming an OS for not catering very well to out-of-design-spec use of hardware?...

Also, I meant no insult; it was just an observation about how things were worded and only touching on potential selling points.

An observation of my own ignored by you is that despite the improvements made to the core of Windows 8, you have to keep in mind that Windows is, first and foremost, a user interface to the hardware it runs on. If what is delivered "out of the box" leads to frustration for the big majority of people using Windows 7 right now, then they are doing something wrong in the intuitive part of what an interface has to be. It's not merely about a learning curve, it is about forcing people to buy a new computer to make good use of what they sell. Even with third-party tools, you are looking at compatibility issues, MS removing code (as outlined before) to make the classic (read: non-touch) way of working impossible. They have stated themselves that they want to break open a new hardware segment for Windows 8. Mobile computing required them to make improvements to the core, so they did. And that is probably the only reason they did, not because it would improve performance on a market segment they are not aiming for with Windows 8 (desktop/workstation/office use).

As an aside: Stardock software has a really bad track record as far as performance impact goes; and I don't expect this to be any different. Which means that in the end, to get the same functionality out of Win 8 you have with Win 7, you will lose performance.

[tribaljet]

Admin note: redundant quote of entire previous reply removed - don't do that please.

Oh, I whole heartedly agree that such hardware tweaking shouldn't be done at all, as there were reasons silicon sections were disabled in the first place.

An interesting tidbit about Windows 8 is that it uses an improved scheduler that is particularly beneficial to current AMD CPU architectures, that underperform on Windows 7, although the performance improvement isn't significant.

Well, things might have been put together in a way that they could sound like that, something being completely random.

That's the thing, Microsoft have begun enforcing a rather long term plan of platform unification through a combined OS, one that on both current and future iterations will trickle down further on more platforms. Unfortunately, that decision is currently hurting the largest group of PC users, namely the full desktop users without touch-enabled hardware. I've always said that touch tecnology is quite useful and has a rather relevant space on specific professional environments, but its practicality is near to inexistent for desktop users.

There are a few features, however, that make Windows 8 a rather appealing proposition, such as the much improved timing mechanism that allows for smoother pro A/V work, something that ironically also benefits from WDDM 1.2 regarding GPU performance, and like a user posted previously, even Microsoft Word gets a few frames per second

Microsoft is taking a rather large risk by forcing the new UI to their business clients, as it can be seen through the new Server version screenshots, but due to upgrade cycle delays, most companies will likely have shifted to Windows 7 some time ago and see little reason to upgrade, while others might just have shifted to Windows 7, so the upgrade path would likely go through Windows 9 or beyond.

About Stardock, I stopped keeping them under consideration ever since they released that bloat in a box WindowBlinds package, as well as how some of their more "convoluted" software can sometimes mess with systems, even if that's something on the past. And the only reason I linked that specific app for start menu customization, was because of the features provided that didn't carry a performance penalty, as reported by multiple users throughout the web.

In the end, Windows 8 will be installed, out of the box usability will be tested, as well as fully customized usability, as well as backwards compatibility, a few tests of the audio stack, even testing how Hybrid Boot performs on RTM.

EDIT: I also want to test the network stack, as it is supposed to be improved, akin to what happened from Vista to 7, which is a very good thing if they did such improvements.

[Moonchild]

The problem is simply that Windows 8 has its uses, but not on what is the largest group of Windows enabled computers at the moment.
They are trying to unify the hardware - and I think that will fail. With unify I mean making the O.S. less versatile to make it, and a certain way of working, the "holy grail of computer use". But if that is the case, then they want to make desktops into tablets the way it looks now. Desktops are desktops for a reason, tablets are tablets for a reason, phones are phones for a reason. You can't enforce one unified way of working on all those different classes of computing hardware.

And what would be the use of having a touch-enabled OS on a server?... (That's a rhetorical question)

[tribaljet]

Agreed. On its stock form, it's not exactly appealing for the mass PC users.
An example of unification has already been in place in the form of OSX and iOS. Regardless, I don't agree with that decision at all, but I'm on the side that will tweak things to make them usable for what I deem as adequate usability. This whole situation would be virtually entirely defused if a simple switch was in place that allowed for desktop users to simply skip the new UI.

Again, forget about touch-enabled devices. Servers will benefit from Windows Server 2012 through many features, but being much more scalar and with more robust virtualization is already a good enough selling point, especially for users still running Server 2003. But I certainly understand what you're saying.

In the end, I hope Microsoft will come to its senses and add a UI toggle feature on a hotfix, and half the world will suddenly be pleased with the new OS.

[stravinsky]

its too late to add a 'toggle' to disable touch UI. Win8 is already RTM.
And, IMO, completely removing the touch UI is a big enough step that if its not there from the first, its difficult to bring that with a later patch.

Regarding stardock : the link i pasted in the first post is FREE. And works well. So why go for a paid app that is known to cause performance degradation ?

Also, MS have disabled the feature in the Win8 RC versions where you could skip directly to the desktop on logon. So most of these apps wont work. Better option is to continue using the RC version.

[tribaljet]

its too late to add a 'toggle' to disable touch UI. Win8 is already RTM.
And, IMO, completely removing the touch UI is a big enough step that if its not there from the first, its difficult to bring that with a later patch.

Regarding stardock : the link i pasted in the first post is FREE. And works well. So why go for a paid app that is known to cause performance degradation ?

Also, MS have disabled the feature in the Win8 RC versions where you could skip directly to the desktop on logon. So most of these apps wont work. Better option is to continue using the RC version.

It's not late at all, considering that a software UI toggle is quite simple. For easier naming, let's still call the new UI as Metro.

Since you seem to have problems reading previous posts, let me put it in simpler terms. The Stardock app for the intended purpose of tweaking the start menu as well as sending the user straight to desktop rather than Metro is free and has 0% performance penalty, so don't mistake it for any of the commercial software they have, and while I could go into specifics, it's not worth it. Also, I'm well aware of Classic Shell, I've been using it since Vista, and the simple reason I didn't recommend it is because there isn't official Windows 8 RTM support from them yet.

Right, it's better to use an unfinished OS version that has serious compatibility issues with major apps like browsers, right... /sarcasm

[gabranth]

metro isn't going to get changed win8 is going to be a hit so there not reason for them to nerf a feature everyone wants but don't worry we will eventually have win9 and you won't be able to use palemoon on that unless the developer pays license fee's so win8 won't seem so bad for long

[tribaljet]

Again, you either didn't read or misunderstood previous posts. I have zero concerns regarding Metro, as I know how I want my Windows 8 UI to be like. And considering I never mentioned Pale Moon having compatibility issues, you're doing assumptions, something that's plain wrong.

Actually, you seem to belong to the same bunch that hopelessly hopped on the Vista bashing bandwagon, so I'm done arguing with unreasonable people. Go use legacy XP, that virus haven, be happy and have a nice day.

[gabranth]

you got viruses when using xp?? i never noticed myself and why do you want a toggle metro ui options if you don't have concerns with it?

[lyceus]

First, only Windows 8 Pro will have the DVD playback feature that is going to be sold as an addon. And before people start whining about it being sold as an addon, codec licensing costs money, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to compare how much a retail Windows 7 Home Premium goes for when compared to any Windows 8 PC consumer version.

First, there are free codec packs, just look for Shark007 codecs for any video and sound format. So if a guy gives them for free, why not Microsoft, huh? Because they want that people buy the Premium version at any cost. In my country several new computers comes with the "Starter" version, which is a piece of crap that even don't allow you to change the wallpaper unless you buy *again* your copy of Windows as "Home version". And in Windows 8 you will need to buy add-ons too, and later Microsoft gets mad that people prefer to format their HDD and install a "backup" copy instead.

Second, every single computer that had Windows 7 has system wide performance improvements.

It supposed that this happens but it seems that Windows 7 made dance the HDD and is slower than the XP 64 partition.

About drivers, at the present time most Vista drivers work on Windows 7 and many Windows 7 drivers work on the non RTM Windows 8. Driver concern was quite valid during the transition of legacy Windows XP to Windows Vista.

Actually still *IS* valid, since manufacturers expect that we toss up away digital recordings, printers, scanners, IR ports, PDAs, phones, digital cameras and other gadgets that doesn't have support for Windows Vista/7 nor for Windows 8. I won't change all my hardware just because Windows Vista/7 and 8 don't like them and more if the hardware is functional and works fine. I'm sorry but not all people are a moneybags for "update" those things every year.