bit-tech.net

Microsoft details Windows 8 graphics acceleration features

Microsoft details Windows 8 graphics acceleration features

Applications in Windows 8 will enjoy a frame rate boost of up to 500 per cent thanks to new acceleration features, claims Microsoft.

With many power users staring blankly at Microsoft's upcoming Windows 8 release in bemusement, the company needs to do some serious work to convince them of the benefits that come with an upgrade - and it's attempting to do so with information on the new hardware acceleration features available to client applications.

In a post to the Building Windows 8 blog by graphics group programme manager Rob Copeland, claiming that graphics performance has been a big focus for Microsoft's next-generation operating system.

'In the past we've used many different benchmarks and apps to measure the performance of DirectX. These have been largely focused on 3D games,' Copeland explains. 'While games are still very important, we knew that many of these existing ways to measure graphics performance did not tell us everything we needed to know for graphics-intensive, 2D, mainstream apps. So, we created new scenario-focused tests and metrics to track our progress.'

These metrics - which comprise frame rate, glitch count, time to first frame, memory utilisation and CPU utilisation - have, Copeland claims, allowed Microsoft to tailor Windows 8 to ensure that graphics performance for 2D applications is as efficient as possible. Based on work carried out on adding DirectX hardware acceleration to Microsoft apps including Internet Explorer 9, Windows Live Mail and Windows Live Messenger, Copeland's team was able to tweak DirectX and Windows 8 itself to improve general application performance.

The results are undeniably impressive. text-rendering performance is boosted up to 336 per cent over Windows 7, with titles and headings in Metro apps getting the most benefit. Other apps will feel snappier, too, with web pages and word processor documents formatted in paragraphs getting a 150 per cent frame rate boost, and general user interface text rendering jumping 131 per cent over Windows 7.

Geometry rending is also improved by work done for Windows 8: improved tessellation boost the framerate for drawing lines by 184 per cent, rounded rectangles by 220 per cent, ellipses by 369 per cent and rectangles by a whopping 438 per cent. Irregular geometry rendering is also boosted, using a DirectX 11.1 feature dubbed Target Independent Rasterisation (TIR.) On compatible hardware, that results in a boost of between 169 per cent and 523 per cent in the performance of SVG rendering.

'We worked closely with our graphics hardware partners to design TIR. Dramatic improvements were made possible because of that partnership,' Copeland claims of the TIR feature. 'DirectX 11.1 hardware is already on the market today and we're working with our partners to make sure more TIR-capable products will be broadly available.'

52 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Harlequin 24th July 2012, 13:22 Quote
ability to remove metro permanantly and giving at least a start pearl - job done :D

until then though , most home users will look at it and go ` yeah wheres my touch screen monitor 2 feet away`
[USRF]Obiwan 24th July 2012, 13:58 Quote
I rather want them to beef up their browser, make it faster, better and FULL support for HTML5 and Hardware accelerate ALL CSS3 functions. Since the browser is the MOST used application on the windows platform anyway.
GoodBytes 24th July 2012, 14:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
ability to remove metro permanantly and giving at least a start pearl - job done :D

until then though , most home users will look at it and go ` yeah wheres my touch screen monitor 2 feet away`

If you actually use Windows 8, you'll see that the Start Screen is better than the Start menu. Granted the default layout sucks, but once you add folders, make your groups, and pick a better color like dark gray as background instead of flashy green (PS: you do that at first run of the OS), then the Start screen is very enjoyable to use. Imagine seeing new bit-tech.net news right in front of you, without clicking or doing anything. Interested in the headline? Open it up, and read all about it. Same for other news, imagine Steam implementation as well, and perhaps even games.

I am using Windows 8 as we speak on my desktop with my 24inch screen, and I have no trouble using it. Is it all around better than the Start menu? No, it has it's weaknesses, but it's clearly adjustable over time. And so far, the strength surpass the weaknesses.
r3loaded 24th July 2012, 16:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
I rather want them to beef up their browser, make it faster, better and FULL support for HTML5 and Hardware accelerate ALL CSS3 functions. Since the browser is the MOST used application on the windows platform anyway.
IE10 currently gets 319 on the HTML5 test so it'll be a pretty good browser. I'd be very surprised if it didn't support full GPU acceleration for all CSS3 effects.
aramil 24th July 2012, 16:23 Quote
Windows 8 just needs a coretemp tile & a HWMonitor tile and all will be well with the world.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
dyzophoria 24th July 2012, 16:58 Quote
I remember circa windows 95 when people where hating the start menu as to how people are hating metro now signalling the death of windows back then.

I have to admit I still find metro awkward, its not really that bad but I feel that its missing something, maybe more lives tiles from third party apps, maybe an ability to somehow add more customization to its background (though I understand why the need for the static backgrounds).

but overall its not really that bad, I find the workflow almost the same when using the good ol start menu if not faster ( win + typing what you need select enter)

(sigh.. just realized how old i am now)
Star*Dagger 24th July 2012, 17:05 Quote
Every app should be 3d enabled!

Word could show fonts that look like they are raised from the paper, when you type words like bOObs, the Os could imitate what they are describing.
Excel could have sound effects when your budget is not balanced, or when you have an excess of cash it could automatically launch your browser and direct you to the closest high-end escort service.
For Internet Explorer if could have quiet sobbing since no one use that browser anymore.

What a joke, maybe they can add features like not having to reboot to install something, Linux has the ability to CHANGE the core OS code on the fly and has since... well forever!
Or maybe we could have an OS that does not have to be reinstall every 9 to 12 months because it corrupts itself over time.

Microsoft has done more to HARM the PC platform and hold back its development than any other entity or factor.

Yours in anti-Microsloth Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Zoon 24th July 2012, 17:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
If you actually use Windows 8, you'll see that the Start Screen is better than the Start menu.
((snip))
I am using Windows 8 as we speak on my desktop with my 24inch screen, and I have no trouble using it. Is it all around better than the Start menu? No, it has it's weaknesses, but it's clearly adjustable over time. And so far, the strength surpass the weaknesses.
You're entitled to your opinion and to pick what you use. I'm glad you like it and I'm happy you'll be able to upgrade to Windows 8 and use Metro.

However ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
ability to remove metro permanantly and giving at least a start pearl - job done :D

until then though , most home users will look at it and go ` yeah wheres my touch screen monitor 2 feet away`
... I'm with this guy.

I've used the consumer preview and I've been helping one of our techies get his laptop running with the latest preview version with a view to rolling it out company wide. Our VPN doesn't work with it, so its a no-go, and there's a couple other problems.

I actively dislike the Metro interface to the point that I'll fight to the last to use Linux as my desktop OS instead, despite the horrendous problems I know it'll give me.

Or hold off the upgrade until Stardock create a way to get rid of it.
schmidtbag 24th July 2012, 17:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Granted the default layout sucks, but once you add folders, make your groups, and pick a better color like dark gray as background instead of flashy green (PS: you do that at first run of the OS), then the Start screen is very enjoyable to use.
I don't care about enjoyable, I care about effectiveness. When I go to Start and launch a program, I want to be able to do it within a split second and not have to scroll through this long mess of blocks. Last time I tried Metro, I spent a good 5 minutes trying to figure out how to add something to it directly from the interface, and it aggravated me how there's so much wasted vertical space.
Quote:
Imagine seeing new bit-tech.net news right in front of you, without clicking or doing anything. Interested in the headline? Open it up, and read all about it. Same for other news, imagine Steam implementation as well, and perhaps even games.
Or, I could just open a web brower (which could be opened from quicklaunch as 1 click, if desired) that automatically opens to those pages so I get the full thing in front of me from the very beginning. This of course is assuming I'm using Windows, which I rarely touch. In Linux there's methods that are best of both worlds such as a resizable browser that is attached to your desktop.


Anyways back to the article, its nice Windows is finally getting these improvements, however, I personally feel things like graphics performance should be left up to userspace, not kernelspace.
themassau 24th July 2012, 17:57 Quote
wouldn't a new scedualler work better . sted of constantly switching cores t should load one core whit 1 task or thread and keep it at that core. when a new thread gets activated it should set it on another core. this would stop L2 and L1 cashe crushing , increases the clockgating and power gating. it would also trigger turbo more often.
jdageek 24th July 2012, 19:02 Quote
People who are complaining about the metro start screen, you do know that you can type whatever you're looking for and it will immediately show the program/app/whatever? No need for scrolling or looking for your app. Try it out, it's awesome.

I'm definitely looking forward to using the full finished version.
schmidtbag 24th July 2012, 19:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdageek
People who are complaining about the metro start screen, you do know that you can type whatever you're looking for and it will immediately show the program/app/whatever? No need for scrolling or looking for your app. Try it out, it's awesome.

I'm definitely looking forward to using the full finished version.

Or, I could still do that with the original start menu, so that point is somewhat invalid. Half the point of a GUI is to avoid using the keyboard. If I really wanted to type out the program, I'd crack open a command line, which I often do anyway.
digitaldunc 24th July 2012, 19:42 Quote
Every little helps I guess, though I don't feel general app rendering is much of a problem in 7... maybe free up CPU cycles for something else and be handy for hardware with a weedy GPU and relatively powerful GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
Every app should be 3d enabled!

Word could show fonts that look like they are raised from the paper, when you type words like bOObs, the Os could imitate what they are describing.
Excel could have sound effects when your budget is not balanced, or when you have an excess of cash it could automatically launch your browser and direct you to the closest high-end escort service.
For Internet Explorer if could have quiet sobbing since no one use that browser anymore.

Nothing wrong with improvements in general rendering, I admit it isn't really a killer feature but doesn't deserve the tirade of mocking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger

What a joke, maybe they can add features like not having to reboot to install something, Linux has the ability to CHANGE the core OS code on the fly and has since... well forever!

Is it really such a huge inconvenience to reboot every once in a while? It isn't like every single package you install requires it.

Also, I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty sure the kernel can't be altered on the fly. It can be upgraded and modules can be loaded, however.

I think you're maybe confusing "Changing the core OS code" with installing software, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger

Or maybe we could have an OS that does not have to be reinstall every 9 to 12 months because it corrupts itself over time.

PEBCAK, IMHO. I only do a reinstall after a major hardware change (board replacement, for example) and even that isn't always strictly necessary. This install has been going since the Sandy bridge launch, my Dad's XP machine has been running fine from the same install for ~9 years.

Everything post 9x has been pretty stable if you're diligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger

Microsoft has done more to HARM the PC platform and hold back its development than any other entity or factor.

DOS and Windows in the 80s/early 90s made the IBM PC ubiquitous in the office and at home. I'd argue they've done more in the PC platforms favour than probably any other factor, bar maybe the clean room BIOS engineering that made clones possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger

Yours in anti-Microsloth Plasma,
Star*Dagger

What?

I'm not a Microsoft fanboy by any stretch of the imagination and celebrate the strengths and flexibility of *nix; but your frankly emotive inaccuracies give those of us who champion open source a bad name.
dancingbear84 24th July 2012, 19:43 Quote
I tried win 8, I looked at it for about 10 seconds then powered off my vm and bleached my eyes.
I couldn't find control panel instantly, it scared me. I will try again.
Guinevere 24th July 2012, 21:03 Quote
Quote:
150 per cent frame rate boost, and general user interface text rendering jumping 131 per cent over Windows 7

I think you've taken Microsoft's vague descriptions of their increases and added in some explanatory text... but resulted in accurate reporting.

At least that's how I read the figures...

A 100 per cent frame rate boost would mean your FPS was doubled, right? You've got your original 100% plus the 100% boost. A 50% bost is x1.5 the original, and a 150% boost is x2.5 the original? Still with me?

But even though MS say "Framerate increase over windows 7" I think what they mean is "Framerates compared to windows 7"

I think MS mean that a 150% 'increase' is 50% higher than before and not the original 100% and another 150%.

Statistical information is inaccurately presented like this all the time. An 'after' comparison to the original 'before' is presented as an increase. Why? Either through a misunderstanding of the differences or because presenting comparisons as increases is a good way of making things seem better than before.

100% faster means it's twice as fast. A 10% boost means you're 10% better than before not at 10% of the original level.

The reason I'm pretty convinced when MS says 150% they really mean new speed = 'old 100%' + 'new 50%' and not 'old 100%' + 'new 150%' is that if they had really made things x2.5 as fast they'd use these sorts of figures and not 150%.

How about a clarification in the article either detailing the actual increases? Or by not calling the before / after comparisons boosts and jumps.
faugusztin 24th July 2012, 21:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
What a joke, maybe they can add features like not having to reboot to install something, Linux has the ability to CHANGE the core OS code on the fly and has since... well forever!
Or maybe we could have an OS that does not have to be reinstall every 9 to 12 months because it corrupts itself over time.

1) because my Ubuntu server doesn't right now shows me "Restart to complete Updates...".
2) if your Windows 7 installation corrupts itself in 9-12 months, then there is something wrong with your computer or your usage scenario. I had to reinstall at motherboard change only..


@Windows8: I don't mind the Start screen, my only issue is that many times i push the Windows key by mistake, and there is a huge visual difference between Start menu showing up in Windows 7 versus whole desktop going away in Windows 8 :D.
Sloth 24th July 2012, 21:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
If you actually use Windows 8, you'll see that the Start Screen is better than the Start menu. Granted the default layout sucks, but once you add folders, make your groups, and pick a better color like dark gray as background instead of flashy green (PS: you do that at first run of the OS), then the Start screen is very enjoyable to use. Imagine seeing new bit-tech.net news right in front of you, without clicking or doing anything. Interested in the headline? Open it up, and read all about it. Same for other news, imagine Steam implementation as well, and perhaps even games.

I am using Windows 8 as we speak on my desktop with my 24inch screen, and I have no trouble using it. Is it all around better than the Start menu? No, it has it's weaknesses, but it's clearly adjustable over time. And so far, the strength surpass the weaknesses.
I haven't used Windows 8. From videos and user reports it tends to look somewhat obnoxious and generally full of features I'd never use. However, how many of us tech people actually leave things at default? I'm sure within a couple months use I'd have the system bent to my will and fully customized just the way I like it, similar to what you've done.

Maybe some still won't like it, but props to you for actually using it and working with it rather than saying "it's different, change is bad" and never looking back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
@Windows8: I don't mind the Start screen, my only issue is that many times i push the Windows key by mistake, and there is a huge visual difference between Start menu showing up in Windows 7 versus whole desktop going away in Windows 8 :D.
I'm a little worried about this... with hitting the Windows key becoming more and more common I can see it being accidentally pressed more in games. Who knows, though. Maybe you can bind it to a different key (or key combo). I can forsee much rage playing an online game and popping up the start screen at a bad comment! :)
GoodBytes 24th July 2012, 22:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
I haven't used Windows 8. From videos and user reports it tends to look somewhat obnoxious and generally full of features I'd never use. However, how many of us tech people actually leave things at default? I'm sure within a couple months use I'd have the system bent to my will and fully customized just the way I like it, similar to what you've done.

Exactly. And some people wonder if I work for Microsoft. I don't.. I just give it a genuine try, and push myself to see what Microsoft (or whoever) was thinking, adapt, see what I can do improve my usage, THEN judge.

While I didn't say it at first, as I keep everything until I am comfortable and THEN comment, I didn't like the Start Screen on my laptop nor desktop. Despite using the dark gray color layout, to make it smoother to the eye (and nicer.. my opinion), I still got the shock of switch. Exactly like User Account Control dialog box. But like everyone here.. I got use to it, rather quickly actually.. Took me a week of actual using Windows 8 as if it was my main OS, and I got used to it. And now enjoy it more than the Start Screen. I have more items than on my start menu, I find things much faster as I don't have to go to sup-directory for 1x executable, or pass through a long list in that folder of "help", "readme", website link, and so on. So I find that I am more productive.
Quote:

Maybe some still won't like it, but props to you for actually using it and working with it rather than saying "it's different, change is bad" and never looking back.
I'm a little worried about this... with hitting the Windows key becoming more and more common I can see it being accidentally pressed more in games. Who knows, though. Maybe you can bind it to a different key (or key combo). I can forsee much rage playing an online game and popping up the start screen at a bad comment! :)

Games block it, and those who don't, just shows the desktop, like in Windows 7... just without the start menu. Now I haven't tried ALL games, but the ones I have, those are the behavior it does.
GoodBytes 24th July 2012, 22:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
I don't care about enjoyable, I care about effectiveness. When I go to Start and launch a program, I want to be able to do it within a split second and not have to scroll through this long mess of blocks. Last time I tried Metro, I spent a good 5 minutes trying to figure out how to add something to it directly from the interface, and it aggravated me how there's so much wasted vertical space.

You should care about my enjoyability, it shouldn't be a mystery what I do with my computer to you guys, and my high standards. If something makes me loose productivity, or hard to use, then I don't enjoy it.

Start Menu:
-> Open > All Programs > Find and open folder of the program I want. Find in a long list of useless items that contains the following items or more: "uninstall", "readme", some web link, "help", and more. Find the program, click to run.

Results: 3 mouse clicks, lot more second to find... harder to see to high res screen resolution due to smaller text.

Start Screen.
-> Open > Have A LOT more programs... even on a 1440x900 screen resolution on my laptop > Click on program to run.

Results: 2 mouse clicks, few seconds to find.

Also, with the wonderful touch pads we have on our laptop. Large icons are god send. That is one of the big reasons why I LOVE Windows 7 task bar. Even if I use my mouse, larger icons are easier to click on than tiny items.


Also, I don't get what you are talking about "vertical space". It uses the vertical space just fine. Your complaining without real reason.. just to bash on something.


Anyway, You know what will be cool, and I can see... Desktop apps, with Metro icons. Click on them it runs the desktop app. All fine. But the title can inform you about an update for the program. Like puts a star or something on the live tile. Just an idea.
It's just to show how many possibility developer can take advantage off, and goes far further than news and e-mail notification.
Anfield 25th July 2012, 00:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitaldunc
PEBCAK, IMHO. I only do a reinstall after a major hardware change (board replacement, for example) and even that isn't always strictly necessary. This install has been going since the Sandy bridge launch, my Dad's XP machine has been running fine from the same install for ~9 years.

XP, Vista and 7 run so stable you can replace every single part in the Pc without reinstalling. Been there done that multiple times on each of them.
Last time it caused trouble was back in the days of Via and Sis chipsets.

There can be some issues, like for example Java trying to use installed graphics drivers that are from a gpu not currently physically in the system, but that can't be blamed on windows.
schmidtbag 25th July 2012, 00:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Start Menu:
-> Open > All Programs > Find and open folder of the program I want. Find in a long list of useless items that contains the following items or more: "uninstall", "readme", some web link, "help", and more. Find the program, click to run.

Results: 3 mouse clicks, lot more second to find... harder to see to high res screen resolution due to smaller text.
Are you kidding me? Its fine that you enjoy the interface but you're being hypocritical at this point. In your first post, you stated that you spent the time to customize Metro. If you leave the default start menu as-is, it also sucks. In my start menu, I replaced the recent history with tools I use for games (such as level designers or mod imports), and then Documents, Computer, and Control Panel on the right-half with nothing else. Then under All Programs I have shortcuts to any miscelaneous programs - no folders other than 1 for the windows default utilities, and Startup. On my desktop I have all icons for my games. I rarely boot up into Windows and I can find anything without the need of a keyboard within a couple seconds. I can't do that with metro.

Quote:
Start Screen.
-> Open > Have A LOT more programs... even on a 1440x900 screen resolution on my laptop > Click on program to run.

Results: 2 mouse clicks, few seconds to find.
If you only have program shortcuts in your start menu, you get the same effect except it takes less time to move your mouse over to an icon. Keep in mind number of clicks does define how fast something is. That's like saying its faster to drive 5 miles at 30MPH than it is to drive 10 miles at 65MPH. In some instances (such as shutting down the computer), Metro is like driving 10 miles at 30MPH.
Quote:
Also, with the wonderful touch pads we have on our laptop. Large icons are god send. That is one of the big reasons why I LOVE Windows 7 task bar. Even if I use my mouse, larger icons are easier to click on than tiny items.
Trackpads are significantly slower to navigate across the screen with, and when you speed them up too much then they're harder to be accurate with. I assume you speed them up a bit, because otherwise trackpads are probably the absolute worst thing to use with Metro since they can (relativley) take forever to get from one side of the screen to the other. With the classic start menu, everything is pretty small and compact, so it takes no effort to move the pointer to where you need.

Quote:
Also, I don't get what you are talking about "vertical space". It uses the vertical space just fine. Your complaining without real reason.. just to bash on something.
No, I'm not. Look how much empty space is wasted in this:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2011/9/13/1315929218325/win8-start-460.jpg
Hell it's not just empty space; many of those icons are just so pointlessly huge.

I don't hate things for no reason. As I've said in my previous post, I don't prefer the GNOME interface, but I don't hate it - it's just not my preference. If Metro wants to be effective it should be more like the iOS or Android menus, which can do the same things as metro but look nicer, are more user friendly, and much much faster to use (even with a mouse). I don't even have a tablet and I know those interfaces are better.
Parge 25th July 2012, 00:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlequin
ability to remove metro permanantly and giving at least a start pearl - job done :D

until then though , most home users will look at it and go ` yeah wheres my touch screen monitor 2 feet away`

If you actually use Windows 8, you'll see that the Start Screen is better than the Start menu. Granted the default layout sucks, but once you add folders, make your groups, and pick a better color like dark gray as background instead of flashy green (PS: you do that at first run of the OS), then the Start screen is very enjoyable to use. Imagine seeing new bit-tech.net news right in front of you, without clicking or doing anything. Interested in the headline? Open it up, and read all about it. Same for other news, imagine Steam implementation as well, and perhaps even games.

I am using Windows 8 as we speak on my desktop with my 24inch screen, and I have no trouble using it. Is it all around better than the Start menu? No, it has it's weaknesses, but it's clearly adjustable over time. And so far, the strength surpass the weaknesses.

Well said, I'm I'm really starting to get bored of bandwagon jumping Windows 8 bashers.
Sloth 25th July 2012, 00:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Despite using the dark gray color layout, to make it smoother to the eye
A quick question, do you have to use just the provided colors? It's just asking for custom made backgrounds to fit around the tiles.
Quote:
Games block it, and those who don't, just shows the desktop, like in Windows 7... just without the start menu. Now I haven't tried ALL games, but the ones I have, those are the behavior it does.
Well that's not so bad then. Even in the ones that don't block it I can live with seeing the desktop rather than the Start Screen.
azrael- 25th July 2012, 00:37 Quote
One could argue that other people (myself included) are getting tired of the Windows 8/Metro apologetics. I sometimes have the feeling that no matter what Microsoft concocts there will be people praising it to high heaven.

Metro on the desktop simply doesn't work for a lot of people. Microsoft's half-assed attempt at bolting on keyboard and mouse support certainly doesn't help. Why not simply give people the choice?

Another thing that many people apparently forget is that the way the desktop is treated now reeks of "legacy" status. How long will it be before it disappears completely? Hey, but that's OK. The good folk at Microsoft ALWAYS know what they're doing...

Sorry for the rant, but this is an issue that really pushes my buttons.
Sloth 25th July 2012, 00:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
One could argue that other people (myself included) are getting tired of the Windows 8/Metro apologetics. I sometimes have the feeling that no matter what Microsoft concocts there will be people praising it to high heaven.

Metro on the desktop simply doesn't work for a lot of people. Microsoft's half-assed attempt at bolting on keyboard and mouse support certainly doesn't help. Why not simply give people the choice?

Another thing that many people apparently forget is that the way the desktop is treated now reeks of "legacy" status. How long will it be before it disappears completely? Hey, but that's OK. The good folk at Microsoft ALWAYS know what they're doing...

Sorry for the rant, but this is an issue that really pushes my buttons.
I can't help but look at the whole issue and think: Microsoft is a massive company that's been producing operating systems for awhile now. Surely if it was as bad as some people on the internet would have you believe then someone at some point in its development would have stopped and said "Hey wait, this is kind of rubbish isn't it?". It's not like Microsoft is comprised of brainwashed programmer slaves, they're all earning their paycheck on the product they produce and will want it to succeed. I feel fairly confident that once I get my hands on the final release I can get used to and enjoy it.

Of course, it doesn't really matter that much. It's one company's offering, we'll all live no matter how it turns out. You can always buy a Mac.
azrael- 25th July 2012, 01:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
I can't help but look at the whole issue and think: Microsoft is a massive company that's been producing operating systems for awhile now. Surely if it was as bad as some people on the internet would have you believe then someone at some point in its development would have stopped and said "Hey wait, this is kind of rubbish isn't it?". It's not like Microsoft is comprised of brainwashed programmer slaves, they're all earning their paycheck on the product they produce and will want it to succeed. I feel fairly confident that once I get my hands on the final release I can get used to and enjoy it.

Of course, it doesn't really matter that much. It's one company's offering, we'll all live no matter how it turns out. You can always buy a Mac.
Microsoft IS a massive company and you know how those types of company are run ...hierarchical from the top. Now, I haven't worked for Microsoft myself (other than for a subcontractor many years back), but I'm fairly certain that your average Joe Developer doesn't have much input. And there's a certain level of "a**e kissing" involved to boot. Short of Steven Sinofsky or someone even higher up stepping on the brakes noone will halt development.

Lastly, comments like "I'm certain I can get used to it" irk me to no end. You shouldn't have to get used to it. It should come to you naturally. If it doesn't and if that is true for a lot of people it's probably not you at fault.
schmidtbag 25th July 2012, 02:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
I can't help but look at the whole issue and think: Microsoft is a massive company that's been producing operating systems for awhile now. Surely if it was as bad as some people on the internet would have you believe then someone at some point in its development would have stopped and said "Hey wait, this is kind of rubbish isn't it?". It's not like Microsoft is comprised of brainwashed programmer slaves, they're all earning their paycheck on the product they produce and will want it to succeed. I feel fairly confident that once I get my hands on the final release I can get used to and enjoy it.

Of course, it doesn't really matter that much. It's one company's offering, we'll all live no matter how it turns out. You can always buy a Mac.

I really really really wish you were right. You SHOULD be right, but unfortunately you're not. Look at xbox 360 for example - the only reason it was popular is because it could play detailed games with a reliable online network for an affordable price, but the hardware setup was an utter failure. The fact that they even coded a RROD just shows how they really don't care. Or look at Vista for example - I know there are some people out there who really don't mind it, but that was probably the most disliked product MS ever made since windows ME, which is yet another example. AFAIK, people voiced their distaste for Vista before it was released, and MS clearly didn't listen.

The problem with MS today, and is my main gripe of the company, is the developers probably don't get much say in anything. There's someone from management telling them everything to do to a tee whether they find it agreeable or not. That being said, that removes the practical knowledge a developer may have as well as remove all motivation. With no motivation, they do sloppy work. Being a linux user for over 5 years, this becomes very apparent, but isn't so noticeable when Windows and Mac are the only OSes people are exposed to. The same thing applies to many games too. Companies like EA just tell their developers what to do from beginning to end, making games just barely good enough with just barely enough content to be sold for $60.


Good work comes from the insiration (and motivation for that matter) of the developers, not upper management.
GoodBytes 25th July 2012, 03:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrael-
Microsoft IS a massive company and you know how those types of company are run ...hierarchical from the top. Now, I haven't worked for Microsoft myself (other than for a subcontractor many years back), but I'm fairly certain that your average Joe Developer doesn't have much input. And there's a certain level of "a**e kissing" involved to boot. Short of Steven Sinofsky or someone even higher up stepping on the brakes noone will halt development.

Lastly, comments like "I'm certain I can get used to it" irk me to no end. You shouldn't have to get used to it. It should come to you naturally. If it doesn't and if that is true for a lot of people it's probably not you at fault.

Microsoft, since Vista release ('cause you know how that went), works in small'ish team of 3 groups working on parts of the program.

Team 1, is the Program Manager team. They are employees, software developers, who spend most of their energy on doing concepts, brain storming, deciding a product direction, new set of features, etc... They don't do much programing, but still participate in it.

Team 2, is the Software Developers. They do the massive programming, and realizing Team 1 image, and are free to be creative and suggest and implement their own features.

Team 3, is the Software Developers in Test. These are not testers as you think. They verify, test and correct code made by team 1 and 2, for rigidity, and security. And at the end, they play as a first layer of testers of the overall product. Microsoft has it's own testing team., once the product comes to the needed stages.

Team 1, 2, and 3 are always intercommunicating between each other. One member can go the other team guy office and ask questions. Their is no barrier. The company also has multiple inter team meeting and meetings that regroup all teams.

Before any protect starts, you can switch between teams. Microsoft provide courses and workshops to help one pass from one team to the other, and their is an internal interview process. You can't really say "Well it's easy, lick the guys ass for his ideas and be Program Manager", well no, because that decision is well before any brain storming is made. So you can't do that.

No mater the team you take, you are paid the same for the same level of experience working at the company. So you pick what you like the most.

All team members uses the software that they develop. Microsoft calls it, internally, as "Dog Feeding". So they test the software as they develop it, and they see what works and doesn't, and perform changes or cancel a feature or concept based on that.

Each employee uses the computers that fit the project needs, and uses multiple monitor support, consisting of mostly Dell U2410 or other 24inch 16:10 previous Dell UltraSharp monitors, while they are some exception here and there. this is mostly the case.

How do I know all this? Well I applied for an internship at Microsoft, and went up to the final interview stages. So yes, I saw newer builds, at the time, of Windows 8 running on their system, and Office 2013. Sadly, I didn't make it, they found a better match for the software they were working for. It was on Excel, I am no master on it, perhaps they found people that know it better than me. The better news is that I got invited to try again next year, unlike others I know. Oh, for internships, you don't pick where you want to work ('cause let's face it, everyone will want to work on Windows, or the XBox team.. and no one on let's on Notepad ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Are you kidding me? Its fine that you enjoy the interface but you're being hypocritical at this point. In your first post, you stated that you spent the time to customize Metro. If you leave the default start menu as-is, it also sucks. In my start menu, I replaced the recent history with tools I use for games (such as level designers or mod imports), and then Documents, Computer, and Control Panel on the right-half with nothing else. Then under All Programs I have shortcuts to any miscelaneous programs - no folders other than 1 for the windows default utilities, and Startup. On my desktop I have all icons for my games. I rarely boot up into Windows and I can find anything without the need of a keyboard within a couple seconds. I can't do that with metro.

1- You know how much time I spend customizing the Start Menu? A lot. Cleaning all that crap, and I have 2 folders to take care off, and countless of User Account Control dialog boxes, and mouse clicks. On Metro, you just right-click on a bunch of icons, and in one shot: Unpin! You are done cleaning, just move the icons the way you like it and your done.

I don't see what I am being hypocritical about. And no I am not sucking up to Microsoft for a internship. I think they have better stuff to do then to read my Bit-tech.net forum comments. Plus, I am and did complain on the search that it doesn't have a "All" filter, no more DVD codec, harder to shutdown/restart the system, and dual separate Control Panel. But these are not things that blocks me from upgrading. I gain: higher performance, faster booting, longer battery life (1h) in the case of my laptop, native USB 3.0 support, new and more informative task manager (important for me for monitoring a software I work on for resources), new File History system, network improvement, auto-switch between wireless and wired or the reverse networking system, much faster wireless re-connect on wake up, improved multi-monitor support, cloud based account (for those who are interested), reduce restarts on updates, and much more.

Also, your setup sounds like a a big clean up project. Metro is just a few click away, and voila. Plus you have everything in front of you.

So you can do all that in Windows 8 with the Start Screen. If you used Windows 8 seriously, you would know.
Quote:

If you only have program shortcuts in your start menu, you get the same effect except it takes less time to move your mouse over to an icon. Keep in mind number of clicks does define how fast something is. That's like saying its faster to drive 5 miles at 30MPH than it is to drive 10 miles at 65MPH. In some instances (such as shutting down the computer), Metro is like driving 10 miles at 30MPH.
Everytime I try to go fast with the Start Menu, I tend to click on the wrong item. While on the Start Screen, having bigger icons, makes it easier to click on. So at the end of the day, it takes about the same time, as I with the Start menu, I spend about half a second making sure the mouse is on the item I want to click on. When you start Visual Studio by mistake... it's a pain, especially when it's set to load the last project at startup... oh boy you are going to wait, even with an SSD.
Quote:

Trackpads are significantly slower to navigate across the screen with, and when you speed them up too much then they're harder to be accurate with. I assume you speed them up a bit, because otherwise trackpads are probably the absolute worst thing to use with Metro since they can (relativley) take forever to get from one side of the screen to the other. With the classic start menu, everything is pretty small and compact, so it takes no effort to move the pointer to where you need.
Well I don't know what setting you set your touchpad, but fast moving across the screen is easy with the touchpad, but when you need pixel precision... forget about it.
Configure your touchpad properly.


Quote:

No, I'm not. Look how much empty space is wasted in this:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/pictures/2011/9/13/1315929218325/win8-start-460.jpg
Hell it's not just empty space; many of those icons are just so pointlessly huge.
I don't see any wasted space. Else it looks awful. Design is important. Linux is a perfect example onto why it's not welcome to new comers. With the exception of Ubuntu Gnome, which helps a lot, but no real fix, and also at the exception of some few programs, Linux is all about jammy the most on the screen, making hard to find anything. And jam pack with useless options (example, developer(s) can't make a decision, so he makes it an option), no real focus.

NOTE: The point is not to bash o Linux. It's an awesome OS, but it was to show by example, the problem when design isn't put to any priority level beside absolute low.
Quote:

I don't hate things for no reason. As I've said in my previous post, I don't prefer the GNOME interface, but I don't hate it - it's just not my preference. If Metro wants to be effective it should be more like the iOS or Android menus, which can do the same things as metro but look nicer, are more user friendly, and much much faster to use (even with a mouse). I don't even have a tablet and I know those interfaces are better.
Honestly, big no. Even Android is following Windows 8/Windows Phone 7 approach,. While not having live tiles, they went with a home screen with gadget that give you the essentials info, without going in and out of programs. While having icons at first is fine, when you have a lot, it's awful. I don't know 1 single Mac OS user, that likes the iPad style dashboard for running apps. They all say how stupid it is, as it provides no info, no benefits... just icons.. that could be put on the desktop.
GoodBytes 25th July 2012, 04:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag

The problem with MS today, and is my main gripe of the company, is the developers probably don't get much say in anything. There's someone from management telling them everything to do to a tee whether they find it agreeable or not.
Management usually don't have the creativity or knowledge to come up with with such massive change. Managers job is to manage the team, and take important decision making that affects the company as a whole. Example, do we delay a product release for implement the ability to support multiple cursor on the screen? Is it worth the investment? And also, their job is that the ideas from the engineers comes to life and be polished and nice, to boost sales, to benefit the company.

Believe me, I work now for a software company.. if you let us loose, we will never ship a product. As it will be never done. Their is always improvements and new feature to add. You have to draw a line somewhere. While we do this. Managers roles is to make sure we follow our initial plan, that everyone works well together (and perform adjustment if that is not the case, like switch people within the team), and do all the needed paper work.
Quote:

That being said, that removes the practical knowledge a developer may have as well as remove all motivation. With no motivation, they do sloppy work.
If that was the case.. Windows 8 will be Windows 7 with few, not very interesting features.

Vista failure is a bit of complicated one. Microsoft as a whole, was pressured due to the problem that XP was, and making a new OS, for the most part, done form the ground up, was really time consuming... too time consuming, that they shipped too early... I mean over 3 years of delays... ouch. The delay is so long, that they have to contentiously catch up to technology. Imagine Vista looking like Longhorn back in 2003. OUCH! While people were amazed back in 2002 with leaked Longhorn pictures.. now they look pathetic.

I mean look at this:
http://www.webtechgeek.com/NewYorkPics/Longh.jpg
So that caused more delays, and complications. I mean look at the final result.. the interfaces of each programs in Windows look different. You see a bit Longhorn in some, some more late Vista and the rest in between the two. As shown on this picture:

http://www.aerotaskforce.com/thumb/Capture5.JPG/x/560

Vista problem was bad execution, management, communications and possibly bad organizational skills.
Quote:

Being a linux user for over 5 years, this becomes very apparent, but isn't so noticeable when Windows and Mac are the only OSes people are exposed to. The same thing applies to many games too. Companies like EA just tell their developers what to do from beginning to end, making games just barely good enough with just barely enough content to be sold for $60.
No The difference is that:
People jump and buy without question EA games. FPS shooter are virtually identical since Call Of Duty became crazy popular. Not because EA has no imagination, but because people buy this virtually unchanged game. They don't want change. If they wanted, they would would not buy them, and EA would allow creativity.

Windows 8 in the other hand is ground breaking. Whether it's good or bad, that is not the point. The point is how much drastic the changes are. Microsoft could have easily (and possibly be cheaper), to just make Windows 8 look like Windows 7, and forget ARM and tablet support. But no. They decided to scrap everything, and do it all over again. That takes balls, and huge amount of creativity. Ballmer, said it, waaaayyy before we know anything about Windows 8... that Windows 8 will be riskiest Windows they ever done. Well no kidding! No manager, top or low, would ever except to pull Vista sales again. Microsoft is a huge company and makes billions, yes.. but it also cost Billions to operate. Microsoft ranged the red alert with Vista.. as Microsoft saw, that if they pull another Vista.. they would be in serious trouble. Beside, didn't they already fire a bunch of people (mostly managers and administration)? We saw how they changed internally and brought Windows 7.

The reason why Microsoft doesn't listen to people, is that it was a mess with Windows 7. People complained about the new task bar like no tomorrow. I was following this very carefully. People called it "the end of Microsoft". Now look. Everyone loves it. How, as a company, or even yourself, can base decision on that. If you follow what people want, you have 2 possible scenarios.

1- The same product

2- http://startupblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/homermobile.jpg
schmidtbag 25th July 2012, 04:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
1- You know how much time I spend customizing the Start Menu? A lot. Cleaning all that crap, and I have 2 folders to take care off, and countless of User Account Control dialog boxes, and mouse clicks. On Metro, you just right-click on a bunch of icons, and in one shot: Unpin! You are done cleaning, just move the icons the way you like it and your done.
I'm surprised it'd take you so long. Even back in the day when Windows XP was my main and only OS, it still only took me maybe 5 minutes total to set up my start menu to be fast, clean, and effective. Maintain it after every program you install and there's very little to work with. Maybe Metro is slightly easier to organize, because its shown on a much larger scale and isn't collapsable if you mis-click.
Quote:
I don't see what I am being hypocritical about.
This was back before you said you even attempted to do anything with the classic start menu. Based in your original description, you said you didn't like filtering through all those folders and help files, which shows no maintenance whatsoever, or in other words, leaving it as-is with no customization.
Quote:
I gain: higher performance, faster booting, longer battery life (1h) in the case of my laptop, native USB 3.0 support, new and more informative task manager (important for me for monitoring a software I work on for resources), new File History system, network improvement, auto-switch between wireless and wired or the reverse networking system, much faster wireless re-connect on wake up, improved multi-monitor support, cloud based account (for those who are interested), reduce restarts on updates, and much more.
All things that could have effortlessly be added to Win7 if MS wasn't so greedy, but that's for another topic.
Quote:
Also, your setup sounds like a a big clean up project. Metro is just a few click away, and voila. Plus you have everything in front of you.
It's a big cleanup project if you hold off cleaning it up to last minute. Delete the stuff you don't want and configure the layout before you install anything, and then tweak it after every other thing you install. I'm sure Metro in the end requires a lot of the same maintenance, just in a different (possibly easier) manner.

Also, I explicitly don't want everything in front of me - that's one of my complaints about Metro. While you can group things together, you still need to scroll through all of it. If you add folders, well, then you're still not going any faster than the classic menu.
Quote:
So you can do all that in Windows 8 with the Start Screen. If you used Windows 8 seriously, you would know.
I did use win8, and I found Metro to slow me down to an annoying level. Before I used it, I actually didn't hate it because that would be unfair to.

[QUOTE]Everytime I try to go fast with the Start Menu, I tend to click on the wrong item. While on the Start Screen, having bigger icons, makes it easier to click on. So at the end of the day, it takes about the same time, as I with the Start menu, I spend about half a second making sure the mouse is on the item I want to click on. When you start Visual Studio by mistake... it's a pain, especially when it's set to load the last project at startup... oh boy you are going to wait, even with an SSD.[/QUOTE
Again, slow down your mouse pointer, or play some UT to exercise your finger-twitching skills. As another option, increase the font size. Menus these days don't need font sizes under 12 point anymore. Bigger fonts = bigger buttons.
Quote:
Well I don't know what setting you set your touchpad, but fast moving across the screen is easy with the touchpad, but when you need pixel precision... forget about it.
Configure your touchpad properly.
I never said I had a problem. By default, touchpads are annoyingly slow to navigate. I tend to put them toward the faster settings, and I don't tend to mis-click anything. I'm just saying that if you speed them up too much, they get a bit harder to control and it does become easier to mis-click.
Quote:
I don't see any wasted space. Else it looks awful.
Really? You don't find those couple hundred or so vertical pixels of the green background is a waste of space? You don't find that massive blue IE button to be a little excessive?
Quote:
Design is important. Linux is a perfect example onto why it's not welcome to new comers. With the exception of Ubuntu Gnome, which helps a lot, but no real fix, and also at the exception of some few programs, Linux is all about jammy the most on the screen, making hard to find anything. And jam pack with useless options (example, developer(s) can't make a decision, so he makes it an option), no real focus.
Linux isn't welcome to newcomers because it still relies on a terminal every once in a while, its interfaces are drastically foreign, and it doesn't run the programs people want it to or in the same way people expect. Hell I've seen people download a firefox.exe installer and complain that it doesn't work. When you use pre-configured distros such as ubuntu, yea, you get a lot of clutter, but that's because if they don't then people won't know what linux can do and they'll do something stupid like the firefox incident. However, set it up from the ground-up and you can make it very clean. If you see my current linux setup, all you'll find are some desktop icons and a system tray - nothing else.
Quote:
Honestly, big no. Even Android is following Windows 8/Windows Phone 7 approach,. While not having live tiles, they went with a home screen with gadget that give you the essentials info, without going in and out of programs. While having icons at first is fine, when you have a lot, it's awful. I don't know 1 single Mac OS user, that likes the iPad style dashboard for running apps. They all say how stupid it is, as it provides no info, no benefits... just icons.. that could be put on the desktop.
Again, this is after poor maintenance. I personally haven't heard anyone who explicitly dislikes the dashboard. But going to the problem of having a lot of icons - how does this differ from Metro? I haven't really messed with iOS at all so I'm not sure if it has any sort of grouping like android.
schmidtbag 25th July 2012, 04:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Believe me, I work now for a software company.. if you let us loose, we will never ship a product. As it will be never done. Their is always improvements and new feature to add. You have to draw a line somewhere. While we do this. Managers roles is to make sure we follow our initial plan, that everyone works well together (and perform adjustment if that is not the case, like switch people within the team), and do all the needed paper work.
Not true at all, linux has more features than windows, mac, BeOS, and many console OSes combined and a lot of those features, while not having a 1.0 release, are still rock solid and fully functional. Nobody is going to do a good job at programming if there isn't a motivator. For open source programs, it's usually inspiration. For company software developers, its payment.
Quote:
Vista problem was bad execution, management, communications and possibly bad organizational skills.
So you claim if devs are set loose, a product won't be released. Linux proved that wrong. Put a product under some large company's control, and you get bad execution, management, communications, and organization? Contradictory much?
Quote:
No The difference is that:
People jump and buy without question EA games. FPS shooter are virtually identical since Call Of Duty became crazy popular. Not because EA has no imagination, but because people buy this virtually unchanged game. They don't want change. If they wanted, they would would not buy them, and EA would allow creativity.
Exactly, that doesn't really disagree with my point. EA knows that customers will buy their stuff whether or not it is good, different, or has more content.
Quote:
The reason why Microsoft doesn't listen to people, is that it was a mess with Windows 7. People complained about the new task bar like no tomorrow. I was following this very carefully. People called it "the end of Microsoft". Now look. Everyone loves it. How, as a company, or even yourself, can base decision on that. If you follow what people want, you have 2 possible scenarios.

People complaining about the new taskbar were the naysayers who hate change just because they hate change. I personally liked every single change MS ever made to Win7 - I think its the best product they ever made and I think they proved themselves well with it. That says a lot considering I hate the company. I think 7 still has room for improvement and there are still a few things that it should have had by now but everything about Win7 was an improvement. Metro isn't an improvement, its just simply different. It is undoubtedly a better interface for touch screens vs the start menu - there is no denying that. But MS can't afford to release something and THEN improve it, they need it done right the first time and Metro as of right now is not that. I'm not against the concept of Metro, I'm against the execution of it.
GoodBytes 25th July 2012, 04:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Nobody is going to do a good job at programming if there isn't a motivator. For open source programs, it's usually inspiration. For company software developers, its payment.
I never said that. And with all the people that I talked too at Microsoft, they were all above and beyond exited and motivated.
Quote:

So you claim if devs are set loose, a product won't be released. Linux proved that wrong. Put a product under some large company's control, and you get bad execution, management, communications, and organization? Contradictory much?
Management job is to know where to cut, and team leaders to know what's too much or too little when deciding what's in and out from their research, brainstorm and all that.
GoodBytes 25th July 2012, 04:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
I'm surprised it'd take you so long. Even back in the day when Windows XP was my main and only OS, it still only took me maybe 5 minutes total to set up my start menu to be fast, clean, and effective. Maintain it after every program you install and there's very little to work with. Maybe Metro is slightly easier to organize, because its shown on a much larger scale and isn't collapsable if you mis-click.
Well that's my point, it's faster in Metro.
Quote:
All things that could have effortlessly be added to Win7 if MS wasn't so greedy, but that's for another topic.
Heumm... man if I was doing that, my software that I am working on for your guys, will NEVER be out. My feature list is so long I had to cut somewhere. I wanted to release it last year. Now I am trying for an August release.
You have to stop somewhere. I think they stop at the great place with Windows 7. If Microsoft was greedy, they would not even have an OEM nor Upgrade version available.You want Windows? Cash out the full price. Windows 8 PRO Upgrade is 40$.

Also, you can say what you say with ANY software.. and for free software, change "greedy" with "lazy".
Quote:

Also, I explicitly don't want everything in front of me - that's one of my complaints about Metro.
Fair enough. That I understand. But is it really a OS ban?
Quote:
I did use win8, and I found Metro to slow me down to an annoying level. Before I used it, I actually didn't hate it because that would be unfair to.
Same here.. at first... once I got comfortable with it, that was a different story. Heck I even uninstalled Windows 8 Dev Preview.. I could not handle it. Give it a second try with Consumer Preview, and now I like it (also because of the massive improvement they did to it, and once again with the Release Preview).


Quote:

Again, slow down your mouse pointer, or play some UT to exercise your finger-twitching skills. As another option, increase the font size. Menus these days don't need font sizes under 12 point anymore. Bigger fonts = bigger buttons.
My finger skills are fine. I should not feel like I am trying to do a head-shot on a 4x4 head on my screen, when I am on my desktop, if you get what I mean.
Quote:

Really? You don't find those couple hundred or so vertical pixels of the green background is a waste of space? You don't find that massive blue IE button to be a little excessive?
Oh don't get me wrong I see it.. but then how are you suppose to display information with a smaller tile? What 2 word max tile, or scrolling horizontally text? That's just silly. You need room to display text for both small and wide tiles.
Quote:

Linux isn't welcome to newcomers
And Windows needs to be. No choice.
Quote:

Again, this is after poor maintenance. I personally haven't heard anyone who explicitly dislikes the dashboard. But going to the problem of having a lot of icons - how does this differ from Metro? I haven't really messed with iOS at all so I'm not sure if it has any sort of grouping like android.
Doesn't mater. Poor maintenance or not. Beside on Mac OS you only have program shortcuts.. not the rest as we have on Windows. The only reason why we have all these items, especially the "uninstall" items, is legacy stuff done in Windows 95 for people that didn't know on how to remove a software. Then it just become the norm. It's wrong, and I am really happy that some software doesn't do it, but sadly the majority of them still thinks that's what people want.
schmidtbag 25th July 2012, 05:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Well that's my point, it's faster in Metro.
Setting up may be faster in Metro, but actual navigation is not (except by touch screen).
Quote:
Also, you can say what you say with ANY software.. and for free software, change "greedy" with "lazy".
Hah fair enough, can't argue with that. However, aside from Metro and ARM compatibility, Win 8 doesn't offer that much more. Get rid of those 2 things and they could have just shoved all of 8's features into 7.
Quote:
Fair enough. That I understand. But is it really a OS ban?
No. I don't hate Windows 8, I hate Metro (and I'm not fond of the new explorer either - Win7 had the best explorer since it had the most compact and cleanest look). If I were to use 8 I'd just use that registry trick to turn it off. However, the only thing 8 offers that intrigues me over 7 is how it is (slightly) more light-weight - one of my only complaints about 7 is how the 64 bit version was too bloated for my liking. But again, not relevant to this conversation.
Quote:
Oh don't get me wrong I see it.. but then how are you suppose to display information with a smaller tile? What 2 word max tile, or scrolling horizontally text? That's just silly. You need room to display text for both small and wide tiles.
Well, that assumes you care about such things. I personally don't. I prefer such a UI to be up and running ASAP and I want to find my programs as quick as it loads. I personally have disected a netbook, tilted the screen 90 degrees, cut a hole in the front of my computer and placed the screen there as a substitute for most things that Metro could house, except visible at all times and doesn't get in the way of me finding my programs. It runs Openbox on linux with a GUI I made myself. When I didn't have that screen, I used a VFD. Before that, I had a 2nd monitor that was a CRT.
Quote:
And Windows needs to be. No choice.
Agreed, which is why I feel strongly about Metro. It's a drastic change that there is currently no graphical option to disable. If MS gave you a choice of using it before Windows even starts up and let you switch between interfaces, I wouldn't care about it so much. But the fact that they are forcing it on you is what makes me vocally against it.
Quote:
Doesn't mater. Poor maintenance or not. Beside on Mac OS you only have program shortcuts.. not the rest as we have on Windows. The only reason why we have all these items, especially the "uninstall" items, is legacy stuff done in Windows 95 for people that didn't know on how to remove a software. Then it just become the norm. It's wrong, and I am really happy that some software doesn't do it, but sadly the majority of them still thinks that's what people want.

Wait I'm confused, what's this thing regarding uninstalling?
GoodBytes 25th July 2012, 05:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag

Wait I'm confused, what's this thing regarding uninstalling?

I was talking about the mess of items a program ads on the Start menu.
Anfield 25th July 2012, 11:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag

Hell it's not just empty space; many of those icons are just so pointlessly huge.

Software developers are supposed to use the space in those icons and not just put the name of the application in it, failure to do so can't be blamed on MS.

Prime example would be a RSS reader, won't even need to open it to get the info you want.
impar 25th July 2012, 12:13 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Agreed, which is why I feel strongly about Metro. It's a drastic change that there is currently no graphical option to disable. If MS gave you a choice of using it before Windows even starts up and let you switch between interfaces, I wouldn't care about it so much. But the fact that they are forcing it on you is what makes me vocally against it.
Yep. Its a "no compromise" thing. Microsoft way or Microsoft way.
XXAOSICXX 25th July 2012, 16:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Agreed, which is why I feel strongly about Metro. It's a drastic change that there is currently no graphical option to disable. If MS gave you a choice of using it before Windows even starts up and let you switch between interfaces, I wouldn't care about it so much. But the fact that they are forcing it on you is what makes me vocally against it.
Yep. Its a "no compromise" thing. Microsoft way or Microsoft way.

Just like Apple have done...who have taken market share away from Microsoft by doing exactly the same thing. Microsoft want to recover that market share and are taking the same approach. Most end users don't know diddly about what's actually good/bad for them and "want" whatever they're told they want by whoever has the shinest computers and funniest advertising.

Putting the above debate aside for a moment (which has been thoroughly interesting - thank you guyyys!)....From a business perspective, Microsoft are doing the right thing with Metro and Windows 8.

For years they've hung onto the start-menu/desktop way of working and, despite countless improvements, are constantly being told they're failing to innovate. They're forced to cling onto legacy workflows and GUis because they've been terrified of moving forward and alienating their user-base.

Apple, on the other hand, receives near-endless praise for it's innovation and developed a user-base of people who actually welcome the change. Apple has grown. Microsoft has stayed standing still. In business terms, standing still is moving backwards. If Microsoft simply made Windows 8 in the style of Windows 7+someniceimprovements they'd be standing still for other 3 years.

Microsoft HAD to do something radically different. They did it with Windows Phone (and it worked), they're about to do it with tablets, and - in my opinion - they're about to do it with desktops. I'm prepared to bet it'll be very successful in the long term. Not because people here approve of it, but because joe-public suddenly finds that he understands how to use it straight away.

In 10 years' time we'll look back at Windows 7 and wonder how we ever managed - with a desktop that didn't really do anything other than show an image of your favourite game/car/woman/movie/whatever and house a few icons that did nothing other than launch an application. We'll wonder why we had to have a start menu at all. We'll probably wonder how the hell we managed all that time using a mouse for something as simple as selecting what music we wanted to listen to instead of using our fingers.

Have a little vision people..and try to see the bigger picture. The world out there is bigger than all of us.
supermonkey 25th July 2012, 17:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
Most end users don't know diddly about what's actually good/bad for them and "want" whatever they're told they want by whoever has the shinest computers and funniest advertising.
Although I agree with most of what you wrote regarding Microsoft's forward-looking approach to the overall design of Windows 8, I disagree with this statement.

I wouldn't say that most people don't know diddly about what's good or bad for them; rather, I would argue that most people don't particularly care about kernels and network packets and pixel pipelines. i.e. Most people don't really care about the low-level details of how a computer works. Most people (me included) know very well what we want: we just want a computer that works, works well, and lets us use our programs efficiently. I really don't care how the kernel works. I don't particularly care about how all the bits and IP packets are being processed and shuffled around in the core of my machine. When I click an icon to open Photoshop, I'd like to get on with image editing in an efficient manner. When I upload my photos to Flickr, I want the network interfaces to work without much hassle. If a company can improve my user experience when I'm performing my daily computing tasks, then all the better.

I was a bit put off based on early reviews, but the more I read the more I'm inclined to adopt Windows 8 when it is released.
impar 25th July 2012, 22:49 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
Just like Apple have done...who have taken market share away from Microsoft by doing exactly the same thing.
What market share?
Microsoft mainly had desktops, laptops and small servers. Those are still Microsoft dominated.
Where Apple has grown was in phones and tablets, a previous small market that Microsoft neglected for years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
Microsoft want to recover that market share and are taking the same approach.
Not the same approach. Apple has different OSes for dfferent devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
Microsoft HAD to do something radically different.
And they did. They removed user choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
I'm prepared to bet it'll be very successful in the long term.
Windows 8 is still Windows. For some tasks there isnt really an alternative. If Microsoft keeps Metro going for long enough time it will become the norm. Just like the ribbon is now for MSO. Early 20's and younger users dont know how to work in any other Office suite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
In 10 years' time we'll look back at Windows 7 and wonder how we ever managed...
In 10 years time Metro-style will have disappeared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermonkey
I was a bit put off based on early reviews, but the more I read the more I'm inclined to adopt Windows 8 when it is released.
You must try it. The Metro-stuff cant be "read", you must experience it and find out if can\want to work with it in a KB+M environment.
GoodBytes 25th July 2012, 23:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar

What market share?
Microsoft mainly had desktops, laptops and small servers. Those are still Microsoft dominated.
Where Apple has grown was in phones and tablets, a previous small market that Microsoft neglected for years.
Apple is gaining to the desktop and laptop market very fast. It's simple. If you want a high quality, junk free system, with good warranty service, nice looking system, on the consumer side... there isn't much choice. It's that, or custom build system. If not, it's crappy junk filled, poor piss poor engineer, no OS disk, not even recovery disk, huge power bricks, MacBook Pro style replica's, or 17inch monstrosity gaming laptops.
impar 25th July 2012, 23:37 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
It's that, or custom build system.
supermonkey 26th July 2012, 01:43 Quote
Don't forget, impar - you're a geek. You want a custom-built system so that you can control every single aspect of the machine, including the hardware. You are also in the minority. The general public wants an easy-to-use, relatively maintenance free device. Portability is nice, too, and I think the general public is beginning to realize that they don't need full-on desktop systems for Facebook and casual gaming. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of office workers don't need full desktops, either. I think simple laptops with a basic docking station would suffice for most business applications.

If I didn't do so much heavy media creation I would seriously consider ditching my desktop and getting a laptop. Considering how powerful and compact hardware is getting, I suspect it won't be much longer before I can do just that.
impar 26th July 2012, 10:30 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermonkey
I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of office workers don't need full desktops, either. I think simple laptops with a basic docking station would suffice for most business applications.
True that. But desktops are cheaper and easier to maintain and service.
Anfield 26th July 2012, 14:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
But desktops are cheaper and easier to maintain and service.

Plus "affordable" Laptops still come with cr*p screens and bargain basement touchpads and lets face it, when you use the screen, keyboard and touchpad for 8+ hours straight each day the quality of those is very important, which means most cheap Laptops would be torture devices for actual work unless you get a separate screen, keyboard and mouse.
GoodBytes 26th July 2012, 14:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
Plus "affordable" Laptops still come with cr*p screens and bargain basement touchpads and lets face it, when you use the screen, keyboard and touchpad for 8+ hours straight each day the quality of those is very important, which means most cheap Laptops would be torture devices for actual work unless you get a separate screen, keyboard and mouse.

Ok that's funny, but even a 2000$ laptop (except a Mac), doesn't have any of those, unless you buy these 17+inch laptop that weights, somehow more than a desktop and 24inch monitor (exaggeration).
Anfield 26th July 2012, 15:22 Quote
^
Laptops don't come with a screen where you live?
faugusztin 26th July 2012, 16:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
^
Laptops don't come with a screen where you live?

He meant even the highend laptops have "bad" screens. For example good luck finding a laptop with 13" display from anyone else but AOC and LG.
XXAOSICXX 26th July 2012, 22:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
^
Laptops don't come with a screen where you live?

He meant even the highend laptops have "bad" screens. For example good luck finding a laptop with 13" display from anyone else but AOC and LG.

Sony do them too :) One of my (several) Vaios has a 13" display :)
faugusztin 26th July 2012, 23:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX
Sony do them too :) One of my (several) Vaios has a 13" display :)

Jesus christ, read before you write :). We don't talk about laptop manufacturers with 13" display laptops, we (me nad GoodBytes) talk about laptop display manufacturers. Not the whole laptop, just the LCD screen. Good luck finding LCD manufactured by Sony (hint: there are none, Sony does not manufacture LCD screens).
GoodBytes 27th July 2012, 00:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
Jesus christ, read before you write :). We don't talk about laptop manufacturers with 13" display laptops, we (me nad GoodBytes) talk about laptop display manufacturers. Not the whole laptop, just the LCD screen. Good luck finding LCD manufactured by Sony (hint: there are none, Sony does not manufacture LCD screens).

Actually, you missed a brand... Sharp. But they only do it for Sony and Apple to my knowledge. However, Sony uses the low end Sharp LCD screen, mostly to maximize profit, while Apple uses the high end Sharp. As for LG, all manufactures uses LG low end laptop panels. They are SOME absolute rare exception, where I see a OEM use a higher end LG panel... but usually those on are the 17inch laptops, or the rest of the laptop is a huge disappointment, so it doesn't attract attention.

As for AOC... Well it's in the name: Acute Overly Crap.

I remember when I want my laptop back 4 years ago.. Dell used 2 panel manufacture for the same resolution for teh very same laptop to meet demand. AOC or, if you are lucky, low end LG. Those, like me, that was lucky enough to get the LG screen, got a nice screen (By nice, I mean for laptop standards. The view angle and contrast are awful and has a slow response time.)

If you got AOC.. hehehe weeeeelll... people just returned the laptop, to try again, and hope it's an LG, let's put it that way. As for all review sites that got the system from Dell: Dell made sure that they have the LG panel.
Anfield 27th July 2012, 18:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by faugusztin
He meant even the highend laptops have "bad" screens. For example good luck finding a laptop with 13" display from anyone else but AOC and LG.

Hehe yep, that was a bit of a misunderstanding there. Yep, unfortunately Screens are rubbish even in a lot of expensive Laptops, I would certainly not want to use one for a extended period like required by work, 8+ hours would be hell, which is why I was shooting down the idea of using Laptop as desktop replacements at work as you would still need a external (this time I'll add in that word to avoid confusion xD) Screen, Keyboard and Mouse in order to be able to work comfortably.
Cause lets face it, you can have all the shiny new ivy bridge mobile cpus in the world in your laptop, but if the screen is crap you are still not going to enjoy using it.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums