Jump to content



Photo

Windows 8: The Boldest, Biggest Redesign in MS's History

win8

  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#106 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 28 September 2012 - 19:23

Right, because explorer ribbons are such a KILLER feature that it totally BLOWS windows 7 out of the water. Or maybe the new visual style is so flawless and perfect that ANY other UI is not worth using?

so you think those are the only new feature on the desktop side? how about the new task manager or file operations or faster shutdowns/startups or reduced memory footprint or multi-monitor support or secureboot or hyperV or ISO mounting or improved UEFI support or storage spaces or hardware accelerated graphics or File history or Refresh/Reset PC or ? Don't they make Windows 8 a better OS than Windows 7?


#107 phailyoor

phailyoor

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 02-September 12
  • OS: Windows 7/8 + OSX + Android
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy Note SGH-i717

Posted 28 September 2012 - 21:14

You just bitch about everything, don't you?

What a convincing and thoughtful response. I must be wrong. You've totally convinced me of your uncontestable righteousness.

so you think those are the only new feature on the desktop side? how about the new task manager or file operations or faster shutdowns/startups or reduced memory footprint or multi-monitor support or secureboot or hyperV or ISO mounting or improved UEFI support or storage spaces or hardware accelerated graphics or File history or Refresh/Reset PC or ? Don't they make Windows 8 a better OS than Windows 7?


I'll admit that they're nice to have. They're absolutely not "killer" features in any way though. Just slight additions.

#108 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 8
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 28 September 2012 - 21:31

I'll admit that they're nice to have. They're absolutely not "killer" features in any way though. Just slight additions.


No, they are quite killer alright. Windows 7 is fairly bastardized on multiple monitors. It's a waste having to return to the center monitor just to do anything.

#109 remixedcat

remixedcat

    meow!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 28-December 10
  • Location: Vmware ESXi and Hyper-V happy clouds
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2
  • Phone: I use telepathy and cat meows to communicate

Posted 28 September 2012 - 21:34

The multimonitor taskbar thing on windows 8 is long overdue though... vista and 7 should have had it.

#110 Dot Matrix

Dot Matrix

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 8
  • Joined: 14-November 11
  • Location: Upstate New York
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 29 September 2012 - 01:53

The multimonitor taskbar thing on windows 8 is long overdue though... vista and 7 should have had it.


Windows 7 especially.

#111 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 29 September 2012 - 03:48

I'll admit that they're nice to have. They're absolutely not "killer" features in any way though. Just slight additions.

It depends on the user. Multi-monitor improvements and HyperV will be absolutely killer features for me at work (once I manage to convince our IT i.e. :( ). I would include ISO mounting too but that's easily doable via 3rd party unlike HyperV or multi-monitor (I don't like any 3rd party tools for multi-monitor, they always feel tacky).

#112 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 01 October 2012 - 13:23

It depends on the user. Multi-monitor improvements and HyperV will be absolutely killer features for me at work (once I manage to convince our IT i.e. :( ). I would include ISO mounting too but that's easily doable via 3rd party unlike HyperV or multi-monitor (I don't like any 3rd party tools for multi-monitor, they always feel tacky).


While easily doable via third-party tools (I used the free Virtual CloneDrive), having it part of the OS (Windows was, in fact, unique in NOT including this feature present everywhere else) simply makes too much sense for the samer reason muti-display should be part of the OS - making sure it's not tacky and clunky.

Hyper-V is basically baked-in OS virtualization (supported in Windows hosts with VMware and Oracle VirtualBox *still* - among others, they both still work in Windows 8); however, I can say that having used Hyper-V (in Windows Server 2012, whicvh lacks the SLAT/EPT requirement Windows 8 *client* has), it smacks both VMware and VirtualBox about quite a bit (with a nurse shark). If only there was a way to add SLAT/EPT via software!

Intel's Wolfdale and later (dual-cores) and Kentsfield and later (quad-cores) have everything *except* SLAT/EPT support, which leads to the $0.64USD question - what is the lowest-end Intel processor that supports SLAT/EPT?

#113 Harrison H.

Harrison H.

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-August 04
  • Location: Florida
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 1520

Posted 01 October 2012 - 13:46

While easily doable via third-party tools (I used the free Virtual CloneDrive), having it part of the OS (Windows was, in fact, unique in NOT including this feature present everywhere else) simply makes too much sense for the samer reason muti-display should be part of the OS - making sure it's not tacky and clunky.

Hyper-V is basically baked-in OS virtualization (supported in Windows hosts with VMware and Oracle VirtualBox *still* - among others, they both still work in Windows 8); however, I can say that having used Hyper-V (in Windows Server 2012, whicvh lacks the SLAT/EPT requirement Windows 8 *client* has), it smacks both VMware and VirtualBox about quite a bit (with a nurse shark). If only there was a way to add SLAT/EPT via software!

Intel's Wolfdale and later (dual-cores) and Kentsfield and later (quad-cores) have everything *except* SLAT/EPT support, which leads to the $0.64USD question - what is the lowest-end Intel processor that supports SLAT/EPT?

Don't quote me on this, but I could have sworn the only ones including SLAT/EPT were the Core I processors. Here's a TechNet blog about it: http://social.techne...-for-hosts.aspx

#114 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 01 October 2012 - 15:14

Don't quote me on this, but I could have sworn the only ones including SLAT/EPT were the Core I processors. Here's a TechNet blog about it: http://social.techne...-for-hosts.aspx


I thought the same - hence how low (in the Intel lineup) does SLAT/EPT go. Remember, I have lots of data that VT-x goes back to Prescott, and became ubiquitous with Wolfdale - the question is does i3 - or even the PentiumG or CeleronG - support SLAT? (Not so farfetched; both PentiumG and CeleronG are cut-down i3s - it's possible that SLAT support is still switched on. VT-x remained actinve with Celeron E3xxx - I have one.)

#115 BajiRav

BajiRav

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Location: Xbox, where am I?
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Windows 8
  • Phone: Lumia 920

Posted 02 October 2012 - 02:20

While easily doable via third-party tools (I used the free Virtual CloneDrive), having it part of the OS (Windows was, in fact, unique in NOT including this feature present everywhere else) simply makes too much sense for the samer reason muti-display should be part of the OS - making sure it's not tacky and clunky.

Hyper-V is basically baked-in OS virtualization (supported in Windows hosts with VMware and Oracle VirtualBox *still* - among others, they both still work in Windows 8); however, I can say that having used Hyper-V (in Windows Server 2012, whicvh lacks the SLAT/EPT requirement Windows 8 *client* has), it smacks both VMware and VirtualBox about quite a bit (with a nurse shark). If only there was a way to add SLAT/EPT via software!

Intel's Wolfdale and later (dual-cores) and Kentsfield and later (quad-cores) have everything *except* SLAT/EPT support, which leads to the $0.64USD question - what is the lowest-end Intel processor that supports SLAT/EPT?

VMware workstation(assuming you meant workstation) or VirtualBox will never be as good as HyperV because they run on top of the host OS while HyperV runs directly on hardware (I know this is a lame and simplistic description). I haven't actually played with it to know why the client version requires SLAT.

#116 Dashel

Dashel

    Disgustipator

  • Joined: 03-December 01
  • Location: USA

Posted 04 October 2012 - 20:49

Lemme guess: You don't really like Windows 8 that much, and you're a person who likes to be biased, so if you read positive experiences of Windows 8, you straight away dismiss them and believe they're wrong or biased, just to suit your view based on ignorance. Am I right? :)

Okay. You keep being unreasonable, while the rest of us engage in mature, meaningful discussion, like the adults we are (Y)


Hardly. Go ahead, attack me. Put words in my mouth (like you have to many others, professional and otherwise) when you know I can't respond to them. Classy. When you start making points that don't remind me of a creationist in a lab coat, I'll change my tune.

Something tells me you would defend Microsoft to the death even if they made getting to the Control Panel a 15 step process that also involved moving the mouse cursor all over the screen.


As long as it supports touch and Kinect and n00bsticks and holographic wang sensors? **** yes. We will swallow any amount of inefficiency to further this goal.

#117 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 04 October 2012 - 23:09

VMware workstation(assuming you meant workstation) or VirtualBox will never be as good as HyperV because they run on top of the host OS while HyperV runs directly on hardware (I know this is a lame and simplistic description). I haven't actually played with it to know why the client version requires SLAT.


As I stated before, I *have* played around with it in WS 2012 (and I know exactly why Windows 8 client requires SLAT/EPT - I/O, and especially GPU, performance in VMs sucketh without it compared to having it).

Still, even without SLAT/EPT, VM performance in Hyper-V (WS 2012) is on par with VMware (Workstation or Player) and better than Oracle VM Virtual Box (given identically-configured VMs), which is saying something.