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

[PGHammer]

Huh? It's an excellent desktop OS, if you ask me. The desktop side of it blows Windows 7 out of the water, and the speed of the OS beats all.

Some folks are assuming that we use Windows 8 only on tablet/slate PCs, Dot. (That is despite my stating, rather bluntly, that I don't own one and likely won't unless I buy one with a physical keyboard; that is because I *loathe* virtual keyboards*.)

I migrated (not upgraded - I did a clean install) to 8 Pro x64 because - much to my surprise - it is a better DESKTOP operating system than Windows 7 x64. (In other words, Modern UI had diddly to do with it, and touch support had even less.)

[cropcircles]

When you look at all the people that will be using W8 and ask them how many of them are concerned about all the UI and other annoying discussion going on here, 75-80% of people just want to get on the internet and surf, check out their Facebook wall. Too many fashion design boys here trying to analyze and break down how people will perceive and use W8.

[PGHammer]

When you look at all the people that will be using W8 and ask them how many of them are concerned about all the UI and other annoying discussion going on here, 75-80% of people just want to get on the internet and surf, check out their Facebook wall. Too many fashion design boys here trying to analyze and break down how people will perceive and use W8.

And do a lot of the SAME things they did using Windows 7.

I do game - while not hypermodern cutting-edge latest-and-greatest games, I actually do have several recent (within the past year) games on my PC. I also have Office 2013 Preview installed.

My operating system? Windows 8 Pro x64 RTM. And it's on a desktop. With keyboard and mouse - and WITHOUT touch.

I actually have far FEWER issues using Windows 8 than I did with Windows 7 - which I was NOT expecting.

I have better performance in all my applications and games, better stability (as in FAR fewer crashes), and I find that I don't even remotely miss the Start menu.

The big difference between me and other desktop/non-touch users that have gone back to Windows 7? I'm actually glad to not find myself "Married to the Mouse" - which has pretty much been the case over the Start menu's run.

After all, my first name is NOT Mickey - or even Minnie. (And I wouldn't WANT to live in the Magic Kingdom - or anywhere in Orange County, CA - not with THEIR debt load.)

[phailyoor]

Huh? It's an excellent desktop OS, if you ask me. The desktop side of it blows Windows 7 out of the water, and the speed of the OS beats all.

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?

[Dot Matrix]

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?

You just bitch about everything, don't you?

[BajiRav]

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?

[phailyoor]

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.

[Dot Matrix]

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.

[remixedcat]

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

[Dot Matrix]

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

Windows 7 especially.

[BajiRav]

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).

[PGHammer]

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?

[Harrison H.]

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.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents/articles/1401.hyper-v-list-of-slat-capable-cpus-for-hosts.aspx

[PGHammer]

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.)

[BajiRav]

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.

[Dashel]

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.

[PGHammer]

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.