Topic: Windows 8 as an OS for PC/Laptops

[Inccubus]

I just had my first encounter with it. Don't like it. It removes so many options it's not even funny. It's like I was looking at the options for a cellphone, not a computer. My neighbor, for whom I was setting up a new pc, is an older guy in his 60's. He's completely baffled by it and he just got used to working with Windows 7. He's not looking forward to learning 8 to the point that he's thinking of having me install 7 for him.

The total lack of the kind of options we once had to make windows function the way we wanted are completely gone. Not having a control panel is completely disempowering and unacceptable.

[beingthehero]

From what I've heard, it's shaping up to be a hamfisted way in competing with Apple. I guess it's the Vista to Windows 7's XP.

[Aridale]

I like it. Ive had it since release and I use the desktop mode exclusively. Its just like 7 but sleeker faster and more responsive and with some minor improvements. The only real difference is theres no start button but you dont really NEED one anyway. Theres really no less options than any 7 they changed how you access them. Its the apps side of 8 that everyone has the problem with and where all the complaints of "tablet os on a pc" come from. The good part is you dont have to use em if you dont want to

[Mooning Freddy]

Hitler finds out the Start menu will be removed from Windows 8

[uzo]

Windows 8 is a travesty and a regression of all that is good about PCs and PC development.

That said I'm still developing for it since it's going to have a built in software digital distribution store. I'll still release normal PC versions of things though of course.

[X]

I don't understand why Mircoshaft brought out windows 8 in the short time that windows 7 has existed. Can't they make a really good operating system the first time and leave it at that, rather then wasting their money on another possible bug-riddled OS like windows vista?

I think that Hitler scene would work a lot better had they put in lines talking about windows 8 

[TheCruelAngel]

I don't understand why Mircoshaft brought out windows 8 in the short time that windows 7 has existed. Can't they make a really good operating system the first time and leave it at that, rather then wasting their money on another possible bug-riddled OS like windows vista?

Technically most OSes are developed from previous OS platforms. XP was derived from the NT (see win 2000) line of OSes and why it was a better and more stable platform. The core of Vista is also based on XP but introduced a lot of new features, which at launch caused a lot of issues (DX10, Aero, etc.) but have all been fixed (seriously, Vista with all the updates is almost indistinguishable from 7 in terms of reliability and performance). 7, again an update on Vista with some additional features but thanks to the stability Vista had achieved by the time 7 released (not to mention 7 didn't introduce a whole new plethora of features) it was viewed as a "good Windows".

8, again, is based off 7 but this time introduced a lot of new features (Metro UI being the dominant feature). Now I haven't heard too much about stability issues (but I'm still using 7 so I dunno) and that most complaints come from the Metro UI, which is something that can be turned off. Much like the Aero UI in Vista and 7 to resemble colder and calculating UIs from previous Windows (like 2000, the best one imo). I think Microsoft was really smart with creating a design language universal to their three primary platforms; Xbox, Windows Phone and Windows proper. If you don't agree, I can understand since not everyone uses the other devices either and only really focuses on what they use/have experience with.

So basically, I think Win8 will turn out to be a fine platform. Obviously first impressions are not favorable, so when Microsoft eventually releases Win9 that will be Win8 with a couple extra features everyone will praise it like the sheep they are. I mean, as long as I don't lose frames from switching to Win8 from Win7, why throw a fit? It's not like the UI for Win8 will detrimentally affect my primary usage for my PC (web browsing, software development and gaming). I mean, if my primary usage with my PC was clicking through the UI to close, launch, tweak, etc. all sorts of different elements and applications, I could see it being cumbersome. But since I'll only be using 3 programs anyway (Chrome, VS2010 and Steam) I don't personally have any issue with it.

Take that how you will, but that's my perspective on everything. I'm sure people will disagree, but I stand by my statement (much like how I stood by my PS3 despite all the "PS3 has no games!" mantra from years ago).

Also a little handy chart describing what I mean with the piggy backing OS development (Pro-tip: Image is HUGE).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Windows_Updated_Family_Tree.png

[uzo]

I don't understand why Mircoshaft brought out windows 8 in the short time that windows 7 has existed.

Windows 7 isn't happy with tablet and phone interfaces.

Can't they make a really good operating system the first time and leave it at that

Then you won't be enticed to rebuy it again and again as the drop support and patches for the previous ones.

[X]

Yeah I know, it's all about money when big business is concerned. But personally I'm the type of person who prefers quality over quantity.

[Aridale]

Windows 7 isn't happy with tablet and phone interfaces.

Neither is 8. The tablet and phone interface is SOLELY the "Metro app" side of 8. It has a perfectly functioning desktop thats a step up over win7 in every way only without a start button on the taskbar.

No ones FORCING anyone to use the metro interface or apps of win8 just like no ones forcing you to use Aero on 7. The option is there take it or leave it. I havent used a single app since installing 8 and I havent had a complaint 1 yet. I use desktop exclusively and I have no complaints.

The only time youll HAVE to use the app side of 8 is on xbox and windows phone because theyll use Windows RT not Windows 8. Big difference. If you happen to want the benefit of cross platform stuff between Xbox/Phone/PC then win8 offers that. You wont be seeing Windows RT on a pc

[TheCruelAngel]

Yeah I know, it's all about money when big business is concerned. But personally I'm the type of person who prefers quality over quantity.

Well if a corporation trying to make money to pay it's employees, donate to charities and help drive the industry forward is such a bad thing, then maybe this is more to your liking?

http://www.ubuntu.com/

[X]

Well if a corporation trying to make money to pay it's employees, donate to charities and help drive the industry forward is such a bad thing, then maybe this is more to your liking?

I feel you've misinterpreted me so I'll clarify. When I refer to quality I mean that the company in question, in this case Microsoft, should take the time and effort to deliver to the masses a truly solid, reliable product that has virtually zero issues. When companies do deliver such a product, the masses are satisfied and they will fork over the money to buy this wonderful product that has made everyone around them happy to use. The money will naturally flow towards the company with a really good reputation under it's belt. In the case of quantity which seems to be all the rage now you have companies that are selling incomplete products littered with bugs and other issues and this leaves the masses angry and asking the big questions about said companies. In this case the companies start to lose money rather then making it because they sullied their reputations with shoddy workmanship, tight budgets, limited time scheduled, etc. In this scenario the quantity is all abut how much money they can rank in without caring about the quality of the product that should have been made properly the first time, and exist as the main priority over finance. Companies need money to survive, yes. In such a world as this that's the ugly truth. But it should not be at the coast of their reputations and products.

[uzo]

That's a nice ideological blurb and all, but in reality that is not going to work as you think it would.

[TheCruelAngel]

I feel you've misinterpreted me so I'll clarify.

(click to show/hide)

When I refer to quality I mean that the company in question, in this case Microsoft, should take the time and effort to deliver to the masses a truly solid, reliable product that has virtually zero issues. When companies do deliver such a product, the masses are satisfied and they will fork over the money to buy this wonderful product that has made everyone around them happy to use. The money will naturally flow towards the company with a really good reputation under it's belt. In the case of quantity which seems to be all the rage now you have companies that are selling incomplete products littered with bugs and other issues and this leaves the masses angry and asking the big questions about said companies. In this case the companies start to lose money rather then making it because they sullied their reputations with shoddy workmanship, tight budgets, limited time scheduled, etc. In this scenario the quantity is all abut how much money they can rank in without caring about the quality of the product that should have been made properly the first time, and exist as the main priority over finance. Companies need money to survive, yes. In such a world as this that's the ugly truth. But it should not be at the coast of their reputations and products.

I was just using a little hyperbole, but I'm glad it's bringing up discussion.

There gets to be a point in the development cycle where you've spent too much time fixing bugs and making the damn best product you can that you will start to lose money, even after launch. So managers and the like calculate at what point do we need ship the product to even see profit and hopefully fund future fixes with the product or start development on the next version of the product. So while I understand the consumer sentiment, "Why wasn't this in development longer to fix everything?!" the answer is that it would of killed the company or product. (It's not uncommon for products to just die in development because of this)

And I don't think anyone in the industry really doesn't "care about the quality" of the product. I highly doubt that there are people who just want to release garbage (though at the same time it wouldn't surprise me if there were), so it saddens me when I see people make statements like that even though everyone is trying their best to release a stellar product. 

Now, with Windows specifically the development cycle is based off previous work on the released platform. Like I said earlier 2000->XP->Vista->7->8, at their core you'll find a lot of features introduced in 2000 used in the later versions of Windows (MMC comes to mind) still because their platforms were based of 2000.

So as you can imagine it doesn't take nearly as long to introduce a new version of a product if you design if based off the previously released version of the product (as opposed to building it from scratch). Not to mention, you don't let your dev team sit around collecting dust after releasing your product. You get them to work on the next one! (Granted a portion of the team is left behind to dedicate to patching the just released product when users find issues in the wild that could not be accounted for during development. Remember kids, nothing complex is 100% bug free, no matter how hard you try, you just haven't found the issues yet and someone else will).

Also, let's look at the release schedule for the past couple decade for major Windows launches.

(click to show/hide)

Win 95 (95)
Win 98 (98) - 3 years
Win 2000 (2000) - 2 years
Win XP (2001) - 1 year difference
Win Vista (2007) - 6 year difference
Win 7 (2009) - 2 year difference
Win 8 (2012) - 3 year difference

We see that 2-3 year development is about the norm, the fluke being the time between XP and Vista. If we compare this to Apple and their OSX lineup (remember these are update you purchase [granted cheaper than a full Windows upgrade...]!)

(click to show/hide)

Cheetah (2001)
Jaguar (2002) - 1 year
Panther (2003) - 2 years
Tiger (2005) - 2 years
Leopard (2007) - 2 years
Snow Leopard (2009) - 2 years
Lion (2011) - 2 years
Mountain Lion (2012) - 1 year

So again, 1-2 years between releases of major versions of OSX (yeah I know I skipped Puma, you didn't have to pay for it if you had Cheetah so I figured it was kind of moot) which were all based on building up on the previous version of the OS.

The point I'm trying to make is that not very many companies develop from scratch for each new product they create (especially with OSes), so building from previous code allows major revisions and updates to happen more rapidly and get a product out to consumers sooner than later.

I don't really remember the point I was trying to make, but there it is! People are always trying to make the best product they can (at least where I work we do!) and working on previously developed code that works helps. And if there's an issue with that code, you can be sure people are looking into ways of fixing it without breaking anything else (a common issue that arises when trying to fix one then, you break 10 other things!). I hope this helped to be informative?

Anyway, tl;dr: people try hard to get things done right the first time, but it can become cost prohibitive if all we focus on is 100% bug free products (which is statistically improbable the more complex a product is), so building on previous iterations of a product allows us a faster and more stable way to release new content to users. Or something like that...?

[Inccubus]

Windows 8 is a travesty and a regression of all that is good about PCs and PC development.

That said I'm still developing for it since it's going to have a built in software digital distribution store. I'll still release normal PC versions of things though of course.

You took the words right outta my mouth. ... Stay outta my mouth, Uzo. ;P


I think the reason I'm so annoyed with it was the shock when I first used it. You see, I was setting up a new computer for an elderly neighbor who I tutored on how to use computers first in XP and then in 7. (Yeah, I told him he was better off skipping Vista.) Anyway, the first impression he got was "What is this? Does this mean I have to learn how to use this all over again?" That pissed me off. Believe it or not there are millions of users around the world for whom having to learn a new OS on a whim is a very inconvenient thing. And I only messed around with it for a little while, but getting rid of the start menu is definitely the single most retarded thing they could have done. It would like like suddenly replacing all steering wheels in cars with airplane control sticks. It'll cause a lot of unnecessary confusion. For no real good reason. I'm as much for progress as anyone else, but a lot of the stupid design choices for windows over the years has been due to MS fixing shit that wasn't broken. For instance, I still hate having to click more than one button if I'm moving several files at once. I really wish they'd go back to how XP handled moving & deleting files. It was faster and less annoying. There was nothing wrong with hoe it worked before. Didn't need to be fixed. Same for the start menu. There was nothing wrong with it, and what's more people have been used to it for a very long time. The thing that pisses me off even more is that if you can turn off the Metro UI, then they hid that option really well. And where the hell is the control panel? I want easy access to my machines settings. I don't want to have to disable a whole UI to find it. If the new UI was intended for Tablets and phones, that's fine. they should have had it disabled on PCs by default to avoid confusing the shit out of their users. This is exactly the kind of retarded shit that leads to people labeling a win OS as a "bad" version. MS is fucking themselves over, but that isn't something new really.