|
|
|
Microsoft demos Windows 8 user interface
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 13 September, 2011
Microsoft just showed off an early development build of Windows 8 at the Windows BUILD keynote.
Steve Sinofsky took to the stage to boast some stats on the success of Windows 7, but that's not what we wanted to hear/see (we'll talk about that later.) What we wanted to see is how is Microsoft going to revamp Windows so much to justify the comparisons to the changes made when Windows 95 ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
FreddyF
Junior Member
|
14. September 2011 @ 14:21 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by Dela:
Originally posted by FatalAD:
everyone has like 6 gigs of ram nowaday who cares if it drops 100mbs lol
Really. Everyone has 6GB RAM these days?
There's people who don't have 3 yet. My opinion is that they should drop support for x86 processors. This will hopefully make the OS cheaper and it'll prevent people with low end processors upgrading and having their systems run slow. Apple did a good thing by dropping x86 support.
I'm not sure what reality you are from, but Apple is running on Intel processors. Even the latest i7 processors are still x86 processors, x86-64. They may have droped support for 8 bit and 16 bit processors, but they do support x86. Apple doesn't have to support much of anything, they basically only sell 5 models with varying processor speeds, hard drives and memory.
I'm sure MS could make much better software if they only supported 1 notebook, 1 ultranotebook, 1 desktop, 1 all in one and 1 mini computer. Lets be realistic, MS supports almost every configuration of computer made today, apple supports what they sell now and what they sold for maybe 4 years. Ask any developer, it's a really big difference. Everyone wants to be Apple, but they can't and they all fail when they try. MS needs to go back to a more modular platform that will allow you to choose what features/options you want to install. Why do I want tablet services and drivers running on my notebook? I don't but I can't get rid of them because they are included in Windows 7. I don't remember if 95 or 98 was the last one that allowed you to not install some features, XP you could untill MS shut down the guy who was putting out the software and took the files off their download site. Installing a slimmed down version of XP made a huge difference in performance. I haven't even found a way to get Windows 7 to stop installing RAID drivers, more than 5 of them, in my notebook with no RAID adapter. We have less and less control over what windows does, that might be great for some people but when you are using your computer to do more than surf the internet all these things make a difference in performance. Apple has done the same with Itunes. From what some Apple geeks tell me, it installs support for so many devices that none of them work very well.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
14. September 2011 @ 15:26 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by FreddyF:
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by Dela:
Originally posted by FatalAD:
everyone has like 6 gigs of ram nowaday who cares if it drops 100mbs lol
Really. Everyone has 6GB RAM these days?
There's people who don't have 3 yet. My opinion is that they should drop support for x86 processors. This will hopefully make the OS cheaper and it'll prevent people with low end processors upgrading and having their systems run slow. Apple did a good thing by dropping x86 support.
I'm not sure what reality you are from, but Apple is running on Intel processors. Even the latest i7 processors are still x86 processors, x86-64. They may have droped support for 8 bit and 16 bit processors, but they do support x86. Apple doesn't have to support much of anything, they basically only sell 5 models with varying processor speeds, hard drives and memory.
I'm sure MS could make much better software if they only supported 1 notebook, 1 ultranotebook, 1 desktop, 1 all in one and 1 mini computer. Lets be realistic, MS supports almost every configuration of computer made today, apple supports what they sell now and what they sold for maybe 4 years. Ask any developer, it's a really big difference. Everyone wants to be Apple, but they can't and they all fail when they try. MS needs to go back to a more modular platform that will allow you to choose what features/options you want to install. Why do I want tablet services and drivers running on my notebook? I don't but I can't get rid of them because they are included in Windows 7. I don't remember if 95 or 98 was the last one that allowed you to not install some features, XP you could untill MS shut down the guy who was putting out the software and took the files off their download site. Installing a slimmed down version of XP made a huge difference in performance. I haven't even found a way to get Windows 7 to stop installing RAID drivers, more than 5 of them, in my notebook with no RAID adapter. We have less and less control over what windows does, that might be great for some people but when you are using your computer to do more than surf the internet all these things make a difference in performance. Apple has done the same with Itunes. From what some Apple geeks tell me, it installs support for so many devices that none of them work very well.
Drop x86 support as in don't make that OS anymore. Only make an x64 operating system.
|
|
FreddyF
Junior Member
|
14. September 2011 @ 17:17 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by core2kid:
Drop x86 support as in don't make that OS anymore. Only make an x64 operating system.
Than it should be drop 32 bit support. the 64 bit Intel processors are x86-64. They are all still based on X86 architecture, they just have instructions to handle 64 bit. If you drop x86 support you drop most of the computers made today. And Inted would have a cow because they are still making 32 bit processors.
MS makes software to run on most computers, Apple makes computers to run their software.
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
14. September 2011 @ 17:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by FreddyF:
MS makes software to run on most computers, Apple makes computers to run their software.
I don't know what you're talking about but I'm typing this on a Mac desktop that I built.
|
|
Xplorer4
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
15. September 2011 @ 04:32 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by Dela:
Originally posted by FatalAD:
everyone has like 6 gigs of ram nowaday who cares if it drops 100mbs lol
Really. Everyone has 6GB RAM these days?
There's people who don't have 3 yet.
@FatalAD, everyone? You do realize the only Intel CPU that support triple channel is Intel Core i7 9XXX Series? How many average users do you know that are going to spend the money on a high end CPU? I could have opted for a socket 13666 mobo but saw no benefit.
Originally posted by core2kid:
This will hopefully make the OS cheaper and it'll prevent people with low end processors upgrading and having their systems run slow. Apple did a good thing by dropping x86 support.
I don't see this being a problem this time around. When people went from Win 98 to XP or XP to Vista, this was an issue because the OS received a major upgrade. From what I see here, despite the MetroUI, doesn't show me anything that is going to require a complete system over haul for Win 7 users. If you have a system that was built and designed with XP in mind, you may see problems, but anyone with a computer designed for Vista or 7 in mind should be fine I suspect.
Originally posted by core2kid:
While I sit back on my Mac for years to come and watch Windows go through 5 OS's.
You do know Mac updates as often as Windows right?
Not their OS and it doesn't cost an arm and leg even if they do.
7 OsX releases since 2001
Microsoft launched Win XP in 2001 fast-forward to today, there was Vista and now 7.
Leopard was $130.
Snow Leopard was $30.
Lion was $30.
That's a $190
I can buy Win 7 for $200 and receive SP1 at no additional cost assuming I am buying for a new install. Upgrading from Vista would be cheaper. You may argue 7 was a SP to Vista, and to some extent it was, but also added a resigned task bat which is worlds better imo, and made some other UI tweaks.
Originally posted by buxtahuda:
Yeah, you actually don't need much for gaming, other than showing off how many simultaneous instances of whatever you can do. It's all about CPU's coupled with moderate RAM and awesome GPU's for gaming. But when you have several image editors open, some music playing, a couple of browsers with dozens of tabs of related content rolling, FTP's and their related HTML/CSS editors chugging, and that game you play for a four minute break, along with IRC clients, instant messengers, anti-virus, and what else have you then RAM disappears alarmingly quick (especially if that break-game is Minecraft lol).
I used to do some PC mod gaming and would have it, firefox with loads o add ons and 70 tabs or so, photoshop CS5, a 3D Model(low polly) open in zmodeler, which granted is much less of a system hog then 3DS,AutoCad,etc,mIRC with NoNameScript, uTorrent, Deluge or Transmission, not to mention monitoring tools like Core Temp and HDD Sentential running, with comodo firewall, among other various apps, and yet I have never actually hit 4GB. Will I upgrade to 8GB on this build? Maybe, it wouldn't hurt, but my next build, yes most likley will include 6 or 8GB depending on which socket I choose and if I stick with Intel or not, but this isn't the place to debate Intel vs AMD. :p
OS: Kubuntu 12.10/Windows 8 -- CPU: Intel Core i7 2600K -- Motherboard: MSI P67A-G45 -- Memory: 2x4GB Corsair Dominator -- Graphics Card: Sapphire 4890 Vapor-X -- Monitor: Dell 2208WFP -- Mouse: Mionix NAOS 5000 -- PSU: Corsair 520HX -- Case: Thermaltake Mozart TX -- Cooling: Thermalright TRUE Black Ultra-120 eXtreme CPU Heatsink Rev C -- Hard Drives: 1x180 GB Intel 330 SSD/1xWD 1 TB Caviar Black/1xWD 2 TB Caviar Green/2xWD 3 TB Caviar Green
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
hackit44
Newbie
|
28. October 2011 @ 22:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by DVDBack23:
Originally posted by core2kid:
Originally posted by skeil909:
Windows 8 will probably be a Windows ME version of 7. Windows 9 will be the fix, while 10 prepares for beta testing. lol
While I sit back on my Mac for years to come and watch Windows go through 5 OSs.
You do know Mac updates as often as Windows right?
Not their OS and it doesnt cost an arm and leg even if they do.
you are right the os is not expensive, but they get you on the hardware. image mac only installs on mac (hackintosh does not count).
You can compare windows to mac all you want. but until mac allows you to install there os on any piece of hardware and then manages to keep there os stable and bug free you have no case.
Could you image how stable windows would be if it only supported a few different pieces of hardware.
I spent 800.00 to build my windows machine and to buy a mac that is comparible would have cost around 1800.00.
so yeah save all the money you want on an os that only has to run on half a dozen computers. Ok maybe 20 different pieces of hardware max.
Funny how mac lovers love to troll windows sights and add there to cents. stop trolling and give in you know you want a pc.
LOL
Ok im done.
|
|
