Windows Technical Preview  

1031 members have voted

  1. 1. On a scale of 1-5, 1 being worst, 5 being best. What do you think of Windows 10 from the leaks so far?

    • 5.Great, best OS ever
      156
    • 4. Pretty Good, needs a lot of minor tweaks
      409
    • 3. OK, Needs a few major improvements, some minor ones
      168
    • 2. Fine, Needs a lot of major improvements
      79
    • 1.Poor, Needs too many improvements, all hope is lost, never going to use it
      41
  2. 2. Based on the recent leaks by Neowin and Winfuture.de, my next OS upgrade will be?

    • Windows 10
      720
    • Windows 8
      20
    • Windows 7
      48
    • Sticking with XP
      3
    • OSX Yosemite
      35
    • Linux
      24
    • Sticking with OSX Mavericks
      3
  3. 3. Should Microsoft give away Windows 10 for free?

    • Yes for Windows 8.1 Users
      305
    • Yes for Windows 7 and above users
      227
    • Yes for Vista and above users
      31
    • Yes for XP and above users
      27
    • Yes for all Windows users
      192
    • No
      71


Recommended Posts

It clearly is.  Start is just a little shorter and moved too far right currently.  If they widen it left with the same relative width then it will match up perfectly.  Purpose has nothing to do with it.  If you understood you'd stop calling it a 'corner'.

 

attachicon.gifCapture.PNG

attachicon.gifcap2.PNG

They are clearly not the same size

post-483058-0-68891800-1428364901.png

post-483058-0-56238100-1428364906.png

post-483058-0-75566500-1428365202.png

You aren't listening then, intentionally or otherwise, when you change the point of focus to when quoting others.  Its rude.  I'm (I think) clearly talking about the use of the sidebar list to display the All Apps view instead of the full screen one you have advocated for, not the current hit-area of its content items.  From the perspective of my question, your terminology is incorrect as only one axis matters.

 

See my edit, I agree the hit-area needs to be increased and the gutter removed - but under the acceptance of the vertical list view which you and certain others detract from, because its supposedly cramped by not being 'full screen'.

 

Clear enough?

i understand the enigma into this rather large and apparent feed back answer to a simple icon question as windows 8 on the whole is very unstable the UI could do with a lot more work and my thoughts are to make it border less and as transparent or transparent as the users are to see whats going on with the latest build seeing windows in different desktop sizes just means getting or putting it on a different monitor as for it cross platform mess i dont think its any good on a phone or a tab i think they should go design something else and leave wind blows to the computers the real ones like desktops and laptops well make it a bit less resource hungry for low end laptops in any case there a lot that could be put into it as well like a simplified virtual machine as i see novice users just installing it and using the new windows 10 OS as there main OS and not really thinking about it before testing it on a VM or some other equivalent virtual environment i do see your point on many or the points you made in this rather large statement your other point is you ether love it or you hate it are you comparing windows 10 to mar-mite sorry i had to get that in and as for mental health issues i am sure the drugs company's of the world are selling more drugs nowadays to silicon valley to come up this all these ideas in such a short time of circa 25 years

Not JUST to Marmite (or Vegemite, for that matter), but to OTHER polar issues (including political issues of the day) - the issue with them ALL is a lack of willingness to compromise.

Apologies, but I'm not entirely sure if you were agreeing/disagreeing or what point you were trying to make.  

 

Modern API can be included w/o causing incompatibility issues.  

 

I do not necessarily have a huge problem with Modern UI, I do not like it but really do not care if it is on the computer or not.  However, the Modern UI (start screen) was a mistake to be a mandatory replacement (aside from 3rd party solutions) on the desktop.  Though MS is attempting to backtrack on that mistake (i.e. return of the start menu) it may ultimately help desktop/larger screens but hurt smaller screens.  

 

This is why you shouldn't have the same UI across the various devices.  Same APIs...sure...but not the same UI.

But how do you fix the UI problem without basically biasing it? By tying the UI to the device, you don't - not everyone works the same way - even on identical hardware.

Instead, go with individual user-choice - NOT device-specificity. Let individual users pick and choose. (I'm no more in favor of StartScreen as only choice than I was of Start menu as only choice.)

Part of my problem with the debate (on both sides) is attempts to push individuals toward one side or the other. (Notice that I had NO opinion on the bringbacks - despite my not using any of them.)

My ONLY opinion - on the third parties - is why step on them at all. It's not as if that segment was neglected BY the third parties. It's not Disk Optimizer vs. Diskeeper. Worse, that same sort of behavior is what got Microsoft into legal hot water before - so why is it permissible now? (That is indeed my implication by the "evil" comment - when Microsoft got dragged into court by "tying", that was, in fact, at the core of the plaintiffs' argument. So why is such behavior permissible when it comes to the UI or UX? Is it because it's YOUR bias that you want favored?)

But how do you fix the UI problem without basically biasing it? By tying the UI to the device, you don't - not everyone works the same way - even on identical hardware.

Instead, go with individual user-choice - NOT device-specificity. Let individual users pick and choose. (I'm no more in favor of StartScreen as only choice than I was of Start menu as only choice.)

Part of my problem with the debate (on both sides) is attempts to push individuals toward one side or the other. (Notice that I had NO opinion on the bringbacks - despite my not using any of them.)

My ONLY opinion - on the third parties - is why step on them at all. It's not as if that segment was neglected BY the third parties. It's not Disk Optimizer vs. Diskeeper. Worse, that same sort of behavior is what got Microsoft into legal hot water before - so why is it permissible now? (That is indeed my implication by the "evil" comment - when Microsoft got dragged into court by "tying", that was, in fact, at the core of the plaintiffs' argument. So why is such behavior permissible when it comes to the UI or UX? Is it because it's YOUR bias that you want favored?)

 

Which is why I typed --- "the Modern UI (start screen) was a mistake to be a mandatory replacement" .  In other words...no user choice but the Start Screen (out of the box)...the didn't give "individual user choice".

 

To the second bold comment.  Are saying that if Microsoft had included both UIs it would have been on the same abusive level as the '98-'01 antitrust suit?  Obviously abusing monopoly power shouldn't be permissible...but do you honestly believe that your last paragraph is valid?  That is somewhat naive with regards to why they brought Microsoft into court.

what's the chances of seeing a new version for phone this week? current version is starting to drive me nuts.

It broke my phone's group messaging (access point), but I am hopeful for a new build.

Is anyone else noticing that whatever you click on now in Neowin seems to bring a popup ad? :angry: This has got to be a mistake. It's almost unusable.

 

Relating to Windows 10, hopefully the "touch-first" Office will be usable by all. Another mistake made with Windows 8 was not introducing "touch-first" Office with it. It's STILL not out!! I think Microsoft is doing right though in waiting until Windows 10 to release it. It will make the Windows 10 release that much more "exciting".

 

What will kind of be interesting is whether they will introduce a mobile version of Office and also a desktop version. If it's too "touchy", desktop users may balk. Especially, if they are currently using a previous version (Office 2010 for instance), why shell out more bucks for a version that's less friendly if there isn't more functionality or (heaven forbid) less functionality?

 

I think that Spartan is actually a good name for a browser. It conveys leanness and speed. Perfect for a browser, I would say. One thing for me..it's GOT to be on alternate platforms (Android, IPhone) and it's got to have sync so I can sync my bookmarks between Spartan on Android and Spartan on desktop. This is primarily why I use Chrome because it does this.

One thing for me..it's GOT to be on alternate platforms (Android, IPhone) and it's got to have sync so I can sync my bookmarks between Spartan on Android and Spartan on desktop. This is primarily why I use Chrome because it does this.

 

I very much agree with this.  It's also the reason why Chrome is my browser of choice.

Which is why I typed --- "the Modern UI (start screen) was a mistake to be a mandatory replacement" .  In other words...no user choice but the Start Screen (out of the box)...the didn't give "individual user choice".

 

Agreed, but I still say there was no real user choice prior to 8 - it was Menu or nothing. So really the lack of included alternative was just business as usual for Microsoft.

 

And no, the option of "Classic Menu" doesn't count in my book - that was just a different skin on the same interface, not an actual alternative. Menu A or Menu B isn't really a choice if you don't like the menu at all,

Which is why I typed --- "the Modern UI (start screen) was a mistake to be a mandatory replacement" .  In other words...no user choice but the Start Screen (out of the box)...the didn't give "individual user choice".

 

To the second bold comment.  Are saying that if Microsoft had included both UIs it would have been on the same abusive level as the '98-'01 antitrust suit?  Obviously abusing monopoly power shouldn't be permissible...but do you honestly believe that your last paragraph is valid?  That is somewhat naive with regards to why they brought Microsoft into court.

No - I said the opposite; a SINGLE UI option would be that level of *evil*. The argument of both the government plaintiffs (and Netscape Communications, et. alia, on the browser developer side) was that by merely including Internet Explorer it presented an insurmountable roadblock to their own products. (Regardless of whether I agreed with the argument or not, that IS the prevailing opinion about the subject - in both legal circles and public-opinion circles.)

In other words, I want greater choice than is available today - not JUST Continuum or mini-Start. I'd actually prefer being able to pick from both (as opposed to "catchall")

So, something just happened on my laptop. It's been working within the expectations, but today some modern apps decided to just stop opening. Rebooting seems to fix some of them, sometimes. I can't open Store (beta), 8 Zip and a bunch of others. Any idea what I can do?

New flags in Internet Explorer (for some reason about:flags doesn't seems to work for me in Build 10049 inside Project Spartan but does in leaked 10051).

 

skWm6vs.png

 

How's the overall performance so far for it? 

Which is why I typed --- "the Modern UI (start screen) was a mistake to be a mandatory replacement" .  In other words...no user choice but the Start Screen (out of the box)...the didn't give "individual user choice".

What? Where did I get a choice prior? How was Windows 8 different?

Agreed, but I still say there was no real user choice prior to 8 - it was Menu or nothing. So really the lack of included alternative was just business as usual for Microsoft.

 

And no, the option of "Classic Menu" doesn't count in my book - that was just a different skin on the same interface, not an actual alternative. Menu A or Menu B isn't really a choice if you don't like the menu at all,

 

What? Where did I get a choice prior? How was Windows 8 different?

 

Guess you forgot that the last time Microsoft made a dramatic shift in the way users interacted with their computer (3.1 > '95) you could still run progman as your default shell (up unit XP SP2).  

By XP SP2, the start menu had become mainstream so Microsoft didn't give another choice, well, since they didn't have one and users had almost 10 (from '95 release to XP SP2 release) years to get used to it.  

Before you say "but"...I think you can safely compare the dramatic shift of 3.1 > '95 and 7 > 8 with regards to how users interacted with Windows.  Doesn't matter why...just stating the facts to counterpoint your discussion.  Neither Vista or 7 included a dramatic change in the way users interacted with their computer.

Now with 10 it is as if they are trying, to hard, to mash both the start screen and start menu together in one big convoluted mess.

 

 

No - I said the opposite; a SINGLE UI option would be that level of *evil*. The argument of both the government plaintiffs (and Netscape Communications, et. alia, on the browser developer side) was that by merely including Internet Explorer it presented an insurmountable roadblock to their own products. (Regardless of whether I agreed with the argument or not, that IS the prevailing opinion about the subject - in both legal circles and public-opinion circles.)

In other words, I want greater choice than is available today - not JUST Continuum or mini-Start. I'd actually prefer being able to pick from both (as opposed to "catchall")

 

 

Sorry, still not sure if you are agreeing with me or not.  /shrug.

Agreed, but I still say there was no real user choice prior to 8 - it was Menu or nothing. So really the lack of included alternative was just business as usual for Microsoft.

 

And no, the option of "Classic Menu" doesn't count in my book - that was just a different skin on the same interface, not an actual alternative. Menu A or Menu B isn't really a choice if you don't like the menu at all,

There was even less choice in Windows 7 as the OS offered no option to use the classic Start menu interface

Guess you forgot that the last time Microsoft made a dramatic shift in the way users interacted with their computer (3.1 > '95) you could still run progman as your default shell (up unit XP SP2).  

By XP SP2, the start menu had become mainstream so Microsoft didn't give another choice, well, since they didn't have one and users had almost 10 (from '95 release to XP SP2 release) years to get used to it.  

Before you say "but"...I think you can safely compare the dramatic shift of 3.1 > '95 and 7 > 8 with regards to how users interacted with Windows.  Doesn't matter why...just stating the facts to counterpoint your discussion.  Neither Vista or 7 included a dramatic change in the way users interacted with their computer.

Now with 10 it is as if they are trying, to hard, to mash both the start screen and start menu together in one big convoluted mess.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, still not sure if you are agreeing with me or not.  /shrug.

In the case of 3.x>95, while Program Manager was present, it was deliberately buried hip-deep.

In the case of 8, the choice was offered by third-parties - NOT Microsoft itself.

I asked those that were in favor of Microsoft basically throwing the third-parties under the bus their opinion OF those selfsame third-party bringbacks - surprisingly, not one was critical of any of them (though both Classic Shell and StartIsBack had their fans). Yet they STILL wanted the choice to be from Microsoft, as opposed to those same third parties; THAT was what got me hot under the collar. Even though I didn't use them, I didn't criticize them, either.

It would be the equivalent of firing a contractor without any justification - that sends a very BAD message about your company.

Edited by PGHammer

In the case of 3.x>95, while Program Manager was present, it was deliberately buried hip-deep.

In the case of 8, the choice was offered by third-parties - NOT Microsoft itself.

I asked those that were in favor of Microsoft basically throwing the third-parties under the bus their opinion OF those selfsame third-party bringbacks - surprisingly, not one was critical of any of them (though both Classic Shell and StartIsBack had their fans). Yet they STILL wanted the choice to be from Microsoft, as opposed to those same third parties; THAT was what got me hot under the collar. Even though I didn't use them, I didn't criticize them, either.

It would be the equivalent of firing a contractor without any justification - that sends a very BAD message about your company.

 

Progman.exe was not "buried hip-deep".  Both winfile and progman could be ran simply by Start > Run > Progman (or winfile).  Both files located within the windows directory.  Hardly "buried".  Microsoft even had a KB article explaining how to make progman your default shell.  Heck, even I ran it as a default for a couple of days.  Wasn't hard...and it was there (unlike Win 8 sans start menu)

 

Regarding the third parties.  Yes, I'd rather have a start menu built in not a third party.  I use Classic Shell in Windows 8...and though it does the job well...I'm still very well aware it is a third party (by little odd behaviors here and there)

 

If including a start menu upsets you to the point of getting hot under the collar...would you be happy if they made a plain operating system free of anything other than APIs software required?  Otherwise, aren't you throwing every third party under the bus by including x, y z program?

 

Anyway, this particular third party start menu discussion is trivial to me.  Not sure the argument or case you're trying to make.  /shrugs

When Windows went from 3.1 to Windows 95 no one questioned whether the Windows 95 interface was better. In fact, those of us who were using NT 3.51 were upset because our "premiere" operating system didn't get the flying folders first.

 

For mobile, yes, the Metro interface was better. That's what it was designed for. But as a desktop OS it stunk. Especially for people that had been using the Start button for 20 years. There was nothing to help the user transition. Clippy would have been better than nothing. 

 

Here is the thing though. I actually liked Vista. I had the machine to run it right and never had problems. Windows 7 came out and people raved about it. I could have said "yea but Vista wasn't so bad!". But you know what I did? I moved on.

 

I've been using Windows 7 ever since with, again, no problems. When Windows 10 goes RTM the vast majority will download it and those who disliked Windows 8 (just like those who disliked Vista) will be happy. Again, I'm going to move on. No one is going to want to hear "Yea buts" about Windows 8 because they will have moved on.

 

From my own reading, I think we're in the "bug fix" stage with Windows 10. Most, if not all, of the user interface is fixed. So arguing about which is the better interface is fruitless. All we can do is wait.    

When Windows went from 3.1 to Windows 95 no one questioned whether the Windows 95 interface was better. In fact, those of us who were using NT 3.51 were upset because our "premiere" operating system didn't get the flying folders first.

For mobile, yes, the Metro interface was better. That's what it was designed for. But as a desktop OS it stunk. Especially for people that had been using the Start button for 20 years. There was nothing to help the user transition. Clippy would have been better than nothing.

Here is the thing though. I actually liked Vista. I had the machine to run it right and never had problems. Windows 7 came out and people raved about it. I could have said "yea but Vista wasn't so bad!". But you know what I did? I moved on.

I've been using Windows 7 ever since with, again, no problems. When Windows 10 goes RTM the vast majority will download it and those who disliked Windows 8 (just like those who disliked Vista) will be happy. Again, I'm going to move on. No one is going to want to hear "Yea buts" about Windows 8 because they will have moved on.

From my own reading, I think we're in the "bug fix" stage with Windows 10. Most, if not all, of the user interface is fixed. So arguing about which is the better interface is fruitless. All we can do is wait.

There were complainers. My aunt sorely missed program manager. Go Google groups aka usenet back in the day? Like start menu replacements there were program manager ones on how to get it back and whining how file explorer was superior etc.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Or just check the script yourself ^^. I hate having a Microsoft account tied to my windows install.
    • 007 First Light review: Satisfying spy adventure that James Bond needed by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe I have fond memories of classic James Bond games from the Electronic Arts era. Using high-tech gadgets, sneaking into parties, and dispatching bad guys were wildly exciting activities for my younger self. In recent years, Bond games have entirely disappeared, alongside the super spy genre. Fast forward to 2020, imagine my surprise when IO Interactive announced it had secured the Bond IP to make a game. Considering the studio’s Hitman history, this project is one I keenly kept an eye on. Six years later, 007 First Light is finally here, and after spending time inside this globe-trotting adventure, I can safely say that my excitement for this developer’s take on this universe was not unfounded. IO has taken lessons it has learned from Hitman and combined them with what I would expect from a directed cinematic experience like James Bond. I have refrained from mentioning major plot points to save you from story spoilers in this review. This is an original story that doesn’t tie into any movies, so there isn’t an expectation of knowing the backstory or the decades of movies either. Bond, James Bond When 007 First Light begins, Bond is just Bond. There isn’t a spy angle, fancy gadgets, or even a secret mission. The introductory mission is framed to show how James Bond handled himself and how he does not care about the odds when it comes to saving lives. It’s a gorgeous level as well, showing off an island scattered with cliffs in the middle of a storm. Looking back, this is probably the best-looking level in the game, with IO showing off all its abilities with its custom engine, Glacier. But my favorite ended up being the follow-up to this level. Once the United Kingdom's foreign intelligence agency, MI6, recruits our daring youngster into its super-spy “00” program, training begins. However, instead of treading through the same tutorial missions where the game teaches you to run and jump and drive, IO opted for a montage, and it’s amazing. The scenes cut between Bond practicing and improving his marksmanship, parkour, hand-to-hand combat, and driving as weeks go by in his training. What impressed me here was the lack of any loading screens or stutters as scenes instantly switched to different locations entirely, as if I was watching a movie. This creativity is a trend I noticed in most levels, where there is some sort of gameplay or choreography mechanic being introduced to keep things interesting. Soon, the rest of the cast is introduced, bringing other agents that our favorite secret agent will be working with, the scientists and engineers that build MI6’s spy gadgets, as well as higher-ranking officers that either appreciate or (at best) tolerate Bond’s rebellious attitude. It’s a tight cast, all with incredibly good voice acting and personalities that quickly grew on me. The casting for Bond himself is also an excellent one. From showing his iconic soft spot for women to the condescending smiles that get a rise out of enemies, I had no issues getting immersed into this universe as this new face of James Bond. The missions take place in a wide range of locations as MI6 sends Bond to tackle dangers that are growing everywhere from the UK to Africa. These aren’t unrelated adventures where MI6 is sending secret agents, which is an angle I would love to see in another game, but a part of a bigger conspiracy affecting the entire world. Some of the twists and turns were all too predictable, and the character that Lenny Kravitz played made me cringe a little too much. But all in all, I enjoyed the campaign’s storyline that sets the stage for this new agent joining the illustrious “00” program. Plenty of Possibilities The third-person style of IO Interactive fits this role quite well. Bond is presented as a master at hand-to-hand combat as well as firearms, while also having a knack for being stealthy when required. Most sections of missions have a lot of freedom. This means I could beat up every goon and security guard on the way to an objective, slip past them without sounding a single alarm, or do a mix of both. My sessions usually end up with the third option because I tend to be impatient about waiting for a patrol to move. Drawing from its Hitman genes, the developer almost always gives multiple routes for going through missions. Levels can be massive, sometimes sporting hundreds of NPCs going their own ways and having conversations. If my objective is to break into a security room on the third floor, I could look around for roof access, eavesdrop on conversations to find out where someone lost a key, create a distraction and pickpocket a guard for a keycard, sneak in through the vents, or simply kick down the offending door. I enjoyed the variety on offer, especially because the same solutions didn’t usually show up in different missions. Before heading out into a secret MI6 escapade, the gadget specialist of the branch walks Bond through the organization's latest and greatest achievements. This can be cool little devices like a laser built into the watch, a phone that fires poison darts, or a camera that emits a powerful shockwave. The choice of what can be taken into the mission is up to the player. I could usually find fresh routes or get out of tough situations with a punch or two, so I never had the feeling of missing out by not choosing the right equipment. It’s still a fun practice. Choosing the armaments before a mission enhanced the super spy feeling quite a bit. As I mentioned, stealth comes in as a very viable option for most of the missions, letting Bond sneak past foes or knock them out silently. While it is satisfying to clear entire areas of goons and walk away without any alarms, the way of accomplishing this could have been done better. Bond can lure enemies, sneak up and knock them out, or use a gadget to disorient them before dealing a nasty blow. Bodies cannot be moved or hidden afterward either. It’s a very simple system, which I wish were more exciting to pull off. Perhaps more stealth-orientated gadgets, distraction options, or multi-takedowns could have helped here, I think. Getting caught while attempting to be in stealth does not mean a game over. Other than getting into a fist fight, an interesting twist of 007 First Light is the bluffing option. While an enemy is confused as to what you are doing in a restricted location, Bond has the option to improvise and persuade them that you are exactly where you’re supposed to be. These are fun little dynamic interactions with unique dialog depending on the mission and location, giving a few extra moments for Bond to go past suspicious guards smoothly. It’s the first time I’ve witnessed this system in a game, and I hope to see more. License to Kill Bond isn’t just dealing with security guards or civilians. From time to time, entire gangs of gun-toting mercenaries show up in levels looking to take down our protagonist. It is then that License to Kill mode is activated for Bond, letting him use firearms with no restrictions. I was surprised by just how tight gunplay is in 007 First Light. The weapons feel powerful and satisfying to fire, with single bullets capable of taking down an enemy with a headshot. Ammo is scarce, and enemies don’t drop weapons with full magazines most of the time. This forces a hectic kind of gameplay where I am always advancing towards enemies to take their weapons after they are downed. Things like shooting legs to immobilize, aiming at the hands to make their weapon go flying, blowing up nearby fire extinguishers for cover, and using gadgets to halt a goon in their tracks while I reload, make up enjoyable levels. I had to hold back my disappointment when the enemy count in these action sequences dropped to zero and I had to go non-lethal again. Speaking of action sequences, First Light isn’t just offering sandbox levels to complete at the player’s own leisure either. Each level comes with specific linear and directed scenes to move the story forward and put Bond in tight situations. These usually end up with high-octane chases or driving sections, offering the chance to witness chaining explosions, hails of gunfire, and scripted parkour scenes that remind me of Mission Impossible movies more than Bond. Elements like seeing James Bond jump out of a plane without a parachute or drive through buildings in London inside a trash truck were fantastic and always left me at a high point when finishing a mission. The classic James Bond theme is sprinkled in here too, which only happens a handful of times in the game, but at just the right moments. Visuals and Performance Compared to Unreal Engine 5 games we are seeing nowadays, 007 First Light isn’t flexing a huge amount of realism when it comes to graphics. The models, textures, and effects all feel a little dated, with the starting mission that I mentioned being the most visually striking. However, the complete lack of stutters, the hundreds of NPCs that can be on screen without a single hitch, massive sandbox levels, and smooth transitions between them all play a part in making this an immensely immersive and complex experience. The in-engine cutscenes are gorgeous as well, offering an upgraded visual style and model detail over the gameplay sections. Animations are one aspect that jumps out at me about any new game, and First Light has nailed what a third-person action game should feel like. Walking, sneaking, and running all have a heaviness to them that I appreciate. Whenever Bond moves past a wall or a ledge, his arms reach out to lightly hold those structures until he moves away. NPCs actually react to my character and move out of the way. Even during melee combat or takedown animations, the fists impacting a body or a head hitting a wall all have that same weight. Even the more frivolous animations, like catching a gun in midair or chucking an empty one at a goon (yes, you can do that), are satisfying to pull off. Of course, the in-engine cutscene animations are remarkably well done too, with facial animations and the upgraded model details improving my engagement with the characters. I have an AMD Radeon RX 9070 XT 16GB paired with an eight-core Ryzen 7 3700X and 32GB of RAM, with the game running at 1440p resolution. Deciding to completely max out all the graphics options gave me a range of frame rates between 60 and 100 depending on the scene and level. While I did try to enable AMD FSR, which bumped up the frame rates by a good 20% at Quality mode, IO Interactive’s implementation of the technology wasn’t that great. Every corner and edge in levels began shimmering, and I was also seeing smearing issues in fast-moving sections. The title seemingly uses the older generation FSR 3.1 and not the machine learning-assisted FSR 4, leading to these artifacts. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to manually upgrade this right now either. I opted to turn off the upscaling and play the game in native 1440p to avoid problems. I would say the FPS range I was getting was an acceptable one for a single-player action game for my setup. I do wish there were an FOV slider option in the settings. While the camera is far enough back for my tastes in most situations in this third-person adventure, at times the perspective is far too close. When trying to look around quickly and spot targets, I realized I was getting a slight headache at times due to the use of an almost over-the-shoulder close-up camera. Conclusion Being James Bond in 007 First Light is a treat. Traveling around the world chasing conspiracies, using high-tech gadgets disguised as everyday accessories, and improvising on the spot to fool foes all give a fantastic feeling of being a super spy. For an origin story, IO Interactive has done a great job at introducing the character and his motives for doing what he does. The satisfying combat animation and fantastic voice acting are definitely high points, with the License to Kill moments being my favorite. Not being able to move bodies and the simplistic stealth of mechanics does hurt its presentation a little. The NPC logic and intelligence is easy to manipulate and trick, repeating the same actions over and over again if I keep making distractions. The lack of an FOV slider was also a pain (quite literally) at times, and the FSR implementation is quite poor. These are things I hope the studio will improve upon with updates. Even with its faults, IO Interactive and James Bond are a match made in heaven. The studio knows how to make a main character that oozes charm and competency while also leaning heavily into its Hitman experience to make gigantic levels with what looks like hundreds of NPCs roaming around. Being an origin story, IO’s Bond has a way to go before he becomes the highly effective agent we see in the movie world. I am hoping the studio will continue this series alongside its Hitman ventures going forward, just so we get to experience the journey for longer. 007 First Light is available on PC (Steam, Epic Games Store, and Xbox PC), Xbox Series X|S, and PlayStation 5 for $69.99. This review was conducted on the PC version of the game provided by IO Interactive.
    • [Price Drop] PDF Expert for Mac v3 is still half off by Steven Parker Today's highlighted deal comes via our Apps + Software section of the Neowin Deals store, where for only a limited time you can save 42% on PDF Expert One-Time Purchase. PDFs remain the best way to transmit documents, but editing them isn't possible with standard Mac software. PDF Expert changes that, allowing you to edit PDF text, images, links, and outlines quickly and easily. Typo in a contract? Easy fix. Need to rework a complete section of a document? No problem. PDF Expert provides a series of essential functions that will transform the way you work with documents on your Mac. It recognizes text and OCR, makes edits, and fills out forms. And with the “Enhance” feature powered by AI, it will fix distortions, remove shadows and improve contrast so that even difficult-to-read documents look great. EDIT Change the text. Easily fix typos, update numbers, or add entire paragraphs Insert images. Update logos in a contract or add a new graph to a report Add links. Enrich your PDFs by linking to other pages or external websites ANNOTATE Highlight the important. Make the most valuable content stand out at a glance Comment on PDFs. Add text to PDFs, insert pop-up notes & write your thoughts in the margins Add stamps. Review documents with our set of stamps or create custom stamps for any workflow ORGANIZE Merge PDFs. Combine multiple files into one PDF document Manage pages. Add, delete, rearrange, or rotate PDF pages with ease Split PDFs. Extract pages from PDFs & save them as separate files CONVERT Convert to PDF. Turn JPG, PNG, Word, PPT, and Excel to PDF PDF to Word. Convert PDFs into editable Word documents PDF to image. Turn PDFs into JPG or PNG images PDF to Excel. Convert PDFs into Excel spreadsheets PDF to PPT. Save PDFs as PowerPoint presentations PDF to text. Convert PDFs into editable TXT files FILL OUT Fill out PDF forms. Easily fill out PDF forms by just clicking on them Sign documents. Add your signature to a PDF in a few clicks. Let customers sign documents with handy one-time signatures Redact PDFs. Blackout or erase confidential information from your documents RECOGNIZE TEXT OCR text in PDF. Recognize the text, so you can search, highlight & copy it Enhance scans. Fix distortions, remove shadows & improve contrast Crop & split pages. Split double-page scans into separate pages & remove undesired margins Good to know: Length of access: Lifetime Redemption deadline: redeem your code within 30 days of purchase Access options: Mac Max number of device(s): Unlimited usage on personal macOS devices Version: PDF Expert 3 for Mac (macOS) Updates: Get continuous support and bug fixes. Additional new features may come at an extra cost. PDF Expert One-Time Purchase normally costs $139.99, but you can pick it up for just $69.97 for a limited time, that represents a saving of $70 (50% off). For a full description, specs, and license info, click the link below. Deal Price One time cost now only $69.97 (was $139.99) Although priced in U.S. dollars, this deal is available for digital purchase worldwide. Support queries If you have queries or need support for any of the Neowin Deals, please use the contact form here. Neowin Deals are managed and sold by StackCommerce who represent Neowin on an affiliate basis. We post these because we earn commission on each sale so as not to rely solely on advertising, which many of our readers block. It all helps toward paying staff reporters, servers and hosting costs. Other ways to support Neowin Whitelist Neowin by not blocking our ads Create a free member account to see fewer ads Make a donation to support our day to day running costs Subscribe to Neowin - for $14 a year, or $28 a year for an ad-free experience Disclosure: Neowin benefits from revenue of each sale made through our branded deals site powered by StackCommerce.
    • Indeed - drives me mad - usually because Refresh is hidden in the full menu.
    • Firefox has had rounded corners for many years. I take it you're not a fan of modern browsers?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Rising Star
      olavinto went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • One Month Later
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      X-No-file earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      271
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      75
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      75
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!