• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Microsoft previews Windows 8

Candlelight

Candlelight

Admiral
Admiral
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tev-bBF2N-4&feature=player_embedded

From, ironically, Macrumors:

• Fast launching of apps from a tile-based Start screen, which replaces the Windows Start menu with a customizable, scalable full-screen view of apps.
• Live tiles with notifications, showing always up-to-date information from your apps.
• Fluid, natural switching between running apps.
• Convenient ability to snap and resize an app to the side of the screen, so you can really multitask using the capabilities of Windows.
• Web-connected and Web-powered apps built using HTML5 and JavaScript that have access to the full power of the PC.
• Fully touch-optimized browsing, with all the power of hardware-accelerated Internet Explorer 10.
Click to expand...

Looks interesting. I'm yet to own any tablet device however.
 
I dislike the idea of replacing the start menu with a full screen app drawer. Such a concept works on phones due to screen size, but even with tablets, it's a waste of space. Something akin to the current windows start menu, perhaps more icon focused, would be better. Maybe even a half-screen?
 
Well, my next PC will be a touch screen. The price is just falling like a rock, and I know I've got a good couple of years before I even consider it, and by then Windows 8 will be out and I will simply buy one with everything in it ready to go.
 
Ever messed around with an HP touchsmart? The touchscreen is cool for a few days, then it gets tedious having to lift up you arms and stretching them out to tap an icon. Plus, you need a bottle of windex on your desk at all times.

Now, a separate laptop-like multi-finger touchpad, THAT would be convenient.
 
STR said:
Ever messed around with an HP touchsmart? The touchscreen is cool for a few days, then it gets tedious having to lift up you arms and stretching them out to tap an icon. Plus, you need a bottle of windex on your desk at all times.

Now, a separate laptop-like multi-finger touchpad, THAT would be convenient.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'd have a keyboard as well, but it would definitely come in handy for certain applications.

Ar-Pharazon said:
It wouldn't surprise me if you could do a "classic" Windows 7 look under personalizations.
Click to expand...

From the looks of the video, I would say Windows 8 is going to be like Windows XP Media Center. There will be a nice, slick interface, with the option to use it in standard mode.
 
I don't like the sound of any of this (especially using the term app, which just makes me want to vomit).
I haven't even moved to Win 7 yet, but it sounds like I'll be sticking with 7 as long as I've stuck with XP. Hopefully most of this can be disabled entirely so I can just have Windows, instead of some Apple clone.
 
I think they need to hire somebody to come up with better names for their new operating systems :).

Pretty slick interface, though I'd probably find myself using classic view. I only really use Windows for work environments, and as many of you know most company I.T. departments will upgrade from XP when you pry it from their cold, dead fingers.
 
Maybe you're fortunate enough not to have a Dell. I don't know for sure that the exasperating slowness of my work machine (despite its excellent specs on paper) is due to XP; it could be the hardware.

All I do know is that I've never faced similar problems on my MBP at home.

But that, as they say, is enough of that. I'll just point out that a "tile-based launch" system sounds an awful lot like Mac OS 9's Launcher, which was okay but has since been abandoned.
 
Computers are getting worse and worse with each day. Everything was so much better 10 years ago. This is just ridiculous. Every new thing is just a major regression over the previous one. Thankfully, I've stayed away from Windows for just about that much time, and I'm not planning to ever use it, so I'll never have to use that... thing in the video. It's shiny and all, but people like to actually use their computers from time to time, and you know, do some work.
 
Lindley said:
Maybe you're fortunate enough not to have a Dell. I don't know for sure that the exasperating slowness of my work machine (despite its excellent specs on paper) is due to XP; it could be the hardware.

All I do know is that I've never faced similar problems on my MBP at home.

But that, as they say, is enough of that. I'll just point out that a "tile-based launch" system sounds an awful lot like Mac OS 9's Launcher, which was okay but has since been abandoned.
Click to expand...

You proved your point at "Dell". :lol:
XP is a pretty fast OS if you have half decent specs (1 or 2gb and it should be perfectly happy), after all it is a decade old.

Knowing Dell, it's either loaded with extra software, or just crap hardware, or both. Considering how ancient XP is, no recent computer should be running it slow though.
My old laptop is quite slow with XP, but that's only got 512mb of RAM. But since you said it has excellent specs on paper, I doubt that's the reason. A lot of packaged computers come loaded with their own background programs though.
 
BlobVanDam said:
I don't like the sound of any of this (especially using the term app, which just makes me want to vomit)
Click to expand...

Windows has been on the downward slope since windows 2000, which is the best thing they've ever made. I have no intention of using xp->7. Nor 8 by the looks of things.

I don't mind the word "app", but it's inconsistent with the windows lexicon:

.exe <--> executable
.app <--> application

app is not simply a contraction of "application", it's a way of pronouncing the extension .app, which we pluralise to apps..

windows doesn't use the .app extension , so it's inconsistent to call program files apps. It's like referring to music files as wavs.
 
Jadzia said:
BlobVanDam said:
I don't like the sound of any of this (especially using the term app, which just makes me want to vomit)
Click to expand...

Windows has been on the downward slope since windows 2000, which is the best thing they've ever made. I have no intention of using xp->7. Nor 8 by the looks of things.

I don't mind the word "app", but it's inconsistent with the windows lexicon:

.exe <--> executable
.app <--> application

app is not simply a contraction of "application", it's a way of pronouncing the extension .app, which we pluralise to apps..

windows doesn't use the .app extension , so it's inconsistent to call program files apps. It's like referring to music files as wavs.
Click to expand...

I agree with your logic entirely. May I ask what you find wrong with XP? As with all upgrades, I did find that XP required more setup to get it the way I like it, since many of the new "features" were not to my liking, but I did find that all my problems with XP could be eliminated with changing settings, rather than having them forced on me (except for the background defrag, which is a stupid idea). I never used Windows 2000, although I always got the impression it wasn't quite there in terms of replacing the consumer Windows line, although still a very good OS. If you like 2000, I'm wondering what XP changed that tipped the scales for you.

I've been mentally preparing myself for Windows 7 though. :lol: I've used it plenty, and there are plenty of little niggles I don't like compared to XP (such as the dumbed down file search that is now completely useless), but since I really need to switch to a 64 bit OS, I have to upgrade (and XP 64 bit isn't very good).
 
BlobVanDam said:
I never used Windows 2000, although I always got the impression it wasn't quite there in terms of replacing the consumer Windows line, although still a very good OS. If you like 2000, I'm wondering what XP changed that tipped the scales for you..
Click to expand...

Yes, most people migrated from 98 to xp, because that was how it was how most retailers did it. Windows 2000 was seen as being at the "business" end of things, like NT4, so most home users never got to try it.

Yet XP and 2000 are very similar in many ways. But if you play modern games, you'd choose XP because many games require it... but I see that as an issue with the game rather than the OS.

I'm not alone in my feelings. Many programmers I've spoken with over the past few years have mentioned that they feel the same way. If they did migrate to XP it was done reluctantly, and only because the games they wanted to play didn't support win2000. Since I don't play modern games I've never been faced with that dilemma. :)

2000 is remarkably stable. I can have it running non stop for months, do many different things with it each day, and it remains as smooth and efficient as it was on day one. That's something of quality.

BlobVanDam said:
May I ask what you find wrong with XP?
Click to expand...

There's lots of small issues that add up. Here are a few of them:

It feels webby compared with 2000, as if parts of it are built in markup language. I hate the look and feel of most web pages for that reason. I certainly don't want that in an OS.

Authentication is unpleasantness. It doesn't fit with my ideals of how software should be. Nobody likes big brother. It only exists because people accept it. Supply and demand.

On the XP machines I've used, the interface wasn't as responsive as win2k running on similar hardware. We may only be talking about 1/10th of a second, but I find it a constant minor irritation when my clicks don't register instantly.

Lastly, there's been a general trend since that time, which can be summarised with the maxim "what intel giveth, microsoft taketh away". Office 2007 running on a typical year 2007 PC is no faster than Office 2000 running on a typical year 2000 PC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top