Microsoft begins distributing Windows 8 to OEMs

[VirtualLarry]

Why Windows 8 this early? MS itching to get people hooked on "cloud" services, and then be able to charge them (monthly) for said services? Software-as-a-service model that MS has been clamoring for some time?

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Cash Cow

 

[Chiefcrowe]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft...i-word-immersive/9092?tag=mantle_skin;content

 

[The Boston Dangler]

let me know when sleep works and settings and thumbnails aren't forgotten.

 

[wanderer27]

I'm seeing some rumors pop up that they're "Ribbonizing" Win 8.

I sure the hell hope not, that's one thing I really hate about Office 2007 - just makes things too darn difficult to find and takes up too much space.



.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

I'm pretty sure you can hide the ribbon, at least you can in 2010.

I'm seeing some rumors pop up that they're "Ribbonizing" Win 8.

I sure the hell hope not, that's one thing I really hate about Office 2007 - just makes things too darn difficult to find and takes up too much space.



.

 

[Anneka]

Please don't compare Office 2007 with 2010 (07 wins by far....)

 

[Nothinman]

let me know when sleep works and settings and thumbnails aren't forgotten.

I have had virtually no issues with sleep in Win7...

 

[phreaqe]

Please don't compare Office 2007 with 2010 (07 wins by far....)

i actually like the ribbon and and i love 2010 better then 07 because more of the programs use it. the only complaints with 2010 i have are outlook related and have nothing to do with the ribbon.

 

[MustISO]

I'll upgrade from XP when they can create an OS that isn't a massive pile of bloat. I have Vista and Windows 7 installed on external drives and I've never heard so much disk thrashing from any operating system. I also find them to be much slower than XP. I just want a lean, fast system.

 

[Nothinman]

I'll upgrade from XP when they can create an OS that isn't a massive pile of bloat. I have Vista and Windows 7 installed on external drives and I've never heard so much disk thrashing from any operating system. I also find them to be much slower than XP. I just want a lean, fast system.

Win7 on my old work laptop was just as fast, if not faster, than XP.

 

[Barfo]

I'm known to give hell to people stuck in their Windows XP worlds, but I think I'll keep 7 for 2 more years, if not more.

 

[spikespiegal]

I'm currently evaluating several types of thin clients running several embedded OS's, and there's very little difference in speed between the XP and Win 7 Embedded versions. Win 7 embedded actually runs pretty spiffy on the small footprints, and this is without tuning. So, I agree with Nothinman in the hardware optimization is leaving the older 32-bit OS's in the dusty.

However, from a bloat perspective, Vista and Win7 are terrible. Easily proven by the amount of services and junk that needs to be turned off.

Also, after we spent a few months beating our heads against the wall solving some severe partition alignment and RAID cache issues on ESXi I've taken those same benchmarks and begun applying them to Vista and Win 7 PCs. I'm finding a scary and rather severe disparity in disk performance on those two platforms unlike I've never seen with previous OSs. Win 7 for instance having a 300% performance difference with app to disk save times when comparing identical platforms. I'm doing the same tests on friend's machines and finding the same problems. I'm baffled at the issue, but it accounts why some people are loving Win7 and other's cursing it.

Whatever next incarnation of Windows arrives Microsoft needs to get strict with OEMs on disk geometry and partitions because there is a huge problem with this with the latest OS's.

 

[Nothinman]

I'm currently evaluating several types of thin clients running several embedded OS's, and there's very little difference in speed between the XP and Win 7 Embedded versions. Win 7 embedded actually runs pretty spiffy on the small footprints, and this is without tuning. So, I agree with Nothinman in the hardware optimization is leaving the older 32-bit OS's in the dusty.

However, from a bloat perspective, Vista and Win7 are terrible. Easily proven by the amount of services and junk that needs to be turned off.

Also, after we spent a few months beating our heads against the wall solving some severe partition alignment and RAID cache issues on ESXi I've taken those same benchmarks and begun applying them to Vista and Win 7 PCs. I'm finding a scary and rather severe disparity in disk performance on those two platforms unlike I've never seen with previous OSs. Win 7 for instance having a 300% performance difference with app to disk save times when comparing identical platforms. I'm doing the same tests on friend's machines and finding the same problems. I'm baffled at the issue, but it accounts why some people are loving Win7 and other's cursing it.

Whatever next incarnation of Windows arrives Microsoft needs to get strict with OEMs on disk geometry and partitions because there is a huge problem with this with the latest OS's.

I've never turned anything off on my Win7 install except for ClearType and the performance was better than that of XP from the beginning. Windows always seemed to have an ultra slow disk subsystem compared to other OSes like Linux, but I never took it so far as to actually benchmark it. And I'm sure it varies a lot between drivers since you're at the mercy of the manufacturer for them instead of having them developed and included in the kernel like in Linux.

 

[Texashiker]

I'll upgrade from XP when they can create an OS that isn't a massive pile of bloat.

I seriously doubt that will ever happen with microsoft.

It seems that every OS tends to take up about 25% of the memory on an average machine - regardless of year of manufacture.

When windows xp was released, the average machine had 128 - 256 megs of memory. XP can barely run on those specs. A few years later when 512 and 1 gig became the norm, xp ran great.

But just as memory was getting into the 3, 4, and 6 gig range, windows 7 comes along that takes up around 750 - 800 megs of memory.

If the tend continues, I look for windows 8 to need around 1.5 gigs of memory (or more) to run properly, and probably a dedicated core on a multi-core cpu.

To be more realistic, I think windows 7 should only take 100 megs of memory or less, not 700. As technology progresses, things are "supposed" to get smaller and more efficient - everything except for microsoft operating systems. Which tend to get bigger and need more resources.

Lets say that a car from 1995 got 700 miles to the gallon. Would we trade that car in on something that got 16 miles to the gallon? Of course not. But for some reason windows operating systems can go from 16 megs of memory to 700 megs? And somehow that is ok?

 

[Nothinman]

I seriously doubt that will ever happen with microsoft.

It seems that every OS tends to take up about 25% of the memory on an average machine - regardless of year of manufacture.

When windows xp was released, the average machine had 128 - 256 megs of memory. XP can barely run on those specs. A few years later when 512 and 1 gig became the norm, xp ran great.

But just as memory was getting into the 3, 4, and 6 gig range, windows 7 comes along that takes up around 750 - 800 megs of memory.

If the tend continues, I look for windows 8 to need around 1.5 gigs of memory (or more) to run properly, and probably a dedicated core on a multi-core cpu.

To be more realistic, I think windows 7 should only take 100 megs of memory or less, not 700. As technology progresses, things are "supposed" to get smaller and more efficient - everything except for microsoft operating systems. Which tend to get bigger and need more resources.

Lets say that a car from 1995 got 700 miles to the gallon. Would we trade that car in on something that got 16 miles to the gallon? Of course not. But for some reason windows operating systems can go from 16 megs of memory to 700 megs? And somehow that is ok?

More features require more memory, it's that simple. The problem is that Windows is so non-modular that you can't disable any significant amount of those features to make it work on lower end systems easily. Windows Server Core is proof that it's possible to do, but not for the user because there's no real package management and the OS components don't use what they do have in place already.

 

[Texashiker]

More features require more memory, it's that simple.

I fully understand your comment, but,,,, I use about the same amount of features in windows 7 that I used in windows 95.

web browser
email
play games (steam - left 4 dead, left 4 dead 2, borderlands,,,,)

The only thing that I do in windows 7 that I did not do in windows 95, I use a video editor for my youtube video blog.

Sometimes I will fire up an FTP program to upload files to my webserver, but I was using an FTP in windows 95 to download files from cdrom.com.

Besides windows live movie maker, I can not think of anything that I do today that is that much different from 15 years ago.

 

[Nothinman]

I fully understand your comment, but,,,, I use about the same amount of features in windows 7 that I used in windows 95.

web browser
email
play games (steam - left 4 dead, left 4 dead 2, borderlands,,,,)

The only thing that I do in windows 7 that I did not do in windows 95, I use a video editor for my youtube video blog.

Sometimes I will fire up an FTP program to upload files to my webserver, but I was using an FTP in windows 95 to download files from cdrom.com.

Besides windows live movie maker, I can not think of anything that I do today that is that much different from 15 years ago.

Same here, which is why I use Linux on my personal machines because I can opt to not install all of the shit that I don't use. But on my Win7 work laptop I do use some of those new features like libraries, indexing of my files and Exchange mailbox, etc.

 

[Veliko]

I fully understand your comment, but,,,, I use about the same amount of features in windows 7 that I used in windows 95.

web browser
email
play games (steam - left 4 dead, left 4 dead 2, borderlands,,,,)

The only thing that I do in windows 7 that I did not do in windows 95, I use a video editor for my youtube video blog.

Sometimes I will fire up an FTP program to upload files to my webserver, but I was using an FTP in windows 95 to download files from cdrom.com.

Besides windows live movie maker, I can not think of anything that I do today that is that much different from 15 years ago.

You are confusing the applications you use with the things that go on under the hood in an OS.

 

[Nothinman]

You are confusing the applications you use with the things that go on under the hood in an OS.

I think the point is that the OS is supposed to be a facilitator; the OS' main function is to run apps and delegate hardware access. We've gotten to the point where a lot of previously optional, 3rd party tools/apps are considered core functionality, like web browsing, but that doesn't mean it still shouldn't be modular enough to remove if you don't need it.

 

[Texashiker]

You are confusing the applications you use with the things that go on under the hood in an OS.

Ok, lets use this comparison, in 1995 I drove a 1/2 ton chevy truck that gotr about 15 miles to the gallon. It was my everyday truck that I drove back and forth to work.

Today, I drive a Toyota T-100 that gets "about" the same gas millage as the chevy, and still takes me where I want to go.

There is no logical reason for an operating system to use 43.75X the amount of memory that windows 95 did. That is like saying that a truck from 1995 that got 15 miles to the gallon, should get .342 miles per gallon today.

The only reason why an operating system takes 700+ megs of memory, is because the developers are no longer limited by system resources. Back in 1999, 2000, 2001, if a system had 256 megs you were doing real good. So developers were limited by system resources. Today, just about all computers come with quad core cpus and 4 - 8 gigs of memory.

I bet microsoft could make an OS that uses less then 100 megs of memory, and very little cpu, but they refuse to do so. But they did it in 1995, 1998 and 2000. Unlike everything less in the world, microsoft products are getting larger and less efficient.

 

[Modelworks]

The only reason why an operating system takes 700+ megs of memory, is because the developers are no longer limited by system resources. Back in 1999, 2000, 2001, if a system had 256 megs you were doing real good. So developers were limited by system resources. Today, just about all computers come with quad core cpus and 4 - 8 gigs of memory.

The reason OS use more than they need now is actually because developers were limited by resources. A good chunk of the problems with current OS is that developers designed the core of the OS to re-use parts of the OS to save memory and storage space. When you start writing applications that depend on a system component to be pre-installed you start to have issues where that system component no longer is required just for the program but also becomes part of the OS. It is the idea of why re-invent the wheel, if someone else has code in place that does what you need then why write it again ? In windows a ton of programs rely on explorer for accessing file systems, that leads to an easy target for malware and causes issues where if explorer crashes so do a lot of other programs.

Every popular OS on the market right now has problems with dependencies , where one application relies on something else being installed. They are all based on designs from 10 years ago. Other OS designs that make use of methods to get away from the legacy issues are out there they just don't have the software support. These newer OS designs have self contained programs that rely on nothing outside of themselves, there are no services or dependencies. The programs tell the kernel what they need and the kernel decides if they can have it, no services, no shared dependencies. It is great to have programs that are just a single exe. No dll, so,.o , or any of that legacy junk. Imagine running an OS that all the applications are just a single file that requires no installation, just click and run and you know that it has everything it needs to work and you can remove it just by deleting the file.

 

[Veliko]

The only reason why an operating system takes 700+ megs of memory, is because the developers are no longer limited by system resources. Back in 1999, 2000, 2001, if a system had 256 megs you were doing real good. So developers were limited by system resources. Today, just about all computers come with quad core cpus and 4 - 8 gigs of memory.

I bet microsoft could make an OS that uses less then 100 megs of memory, and very little cpu, but they refuse to do so. But they did it in 1995, 1998 and 2000. Unlike everything less in the world, microsoft products are getting larger and less efficient.

There is no demand and basically no need for them to create such a lightweight OS. Even tablets and smartphones have significantly more power than that.

 

[MustISO]

There is no demand and basically no need for them to create such a lightweight OS. Even tablets and smartphones have significantly more power than that.

How about they create a lean OS and see how many people buy it. I would bet they would sell tons of it.

Microsoft sales person:
"Do you want a bloated OS with 30 features you never use or a lean, fast OS with only the basics"?

I'm guess more people would respond "lean and fast".

 

[wanderer27]

Ok, lets use this comparison, in 1995 I drove a 1/2 ton chevy truck that gotr about 15 miles to the gallon. It was my everyday truck that I drove back and forth to work.

Today, I drive a Toyota T-100 that gets "about" the same gas millage as the chevy, and still takes me where I want to go.

There is no logical reason for an operating system to use 43.75X the amount of memory that windows 95 did. That is like saying that a truck from 1995 that got 15 miles to the gallon, should get .342 miles per gallon today.

The only reason why an operating system takes 700+ megs of memory, is because the developers are no longer limited by system resources. Back in 1999, 2000, 2001, if a system had 256 megs you were doing real good. So developers were limited by system resources. Today, just about all computers come with quad core cpus and 4 - 8 gigs of memory.

I bet microsoft could make an OS that uses less then 100 megs of memory, and very little cpu, but they refuse to do so. But they did it in 1995, 1998 and 2000. Unlike everything less in the world, microsoft products are getting larger and less efficient.

I think you've pretty much nailed it.

Back in the day, with limited resources you had to put in the extra effort to optimize and tweak to fit into the available Memory and function reasonably with CPU horsepower you had.

These days, there's quite a bit more Memory available, and CPU performance is magnitudes greater than what was available back then.
With all this extra capacity (on both fronts), developers pretty much just run things through the Compiler and leave it at that.

Granted, Compilers are (hopefully) better these days, but there's still room for optimization that just doesn't seem to happen these days.
You just don't much these days about getting down into Machine level programming to tweak performance.

Games are probably the most demonstrative of this.


.