dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
5038
share rss forum feed


aa2k

join:2000-10-06
Damascus, MD
reply to Jan Janowski

Re: [WIN8] Windows 8 --- What benifits over W7-64?

FYI -

If for any reason you need "Client for NFS" to connect to a NFS share on your network you are out of luck, Windows 8 Pro (retail/rtm/msdn) is missing this component and no way to install it, Enterprise and VL has this option under "Turn off/on features" but they are not on sale on regular retail channels.

Glen T

join:2003-11-03
BC
reply to Jan Janowski
It's kind-of sad that the big seller on the list for me is that Microsoft promises to arbitrarily restart my computer "less often" when they decide to push Trojan patches out, and will offer a 72 hour notice rather than 20 minutes when they do it.

I have long suspected the MS also resets Windows Updates to automatic occasionally, but have never been able to prove it.


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..

2 edits
reply to Jan Janowski
It all reminds me of the "Detroit" syndrome. Companies make the bulk of their revenue by selling things, and when their products are relatively durable (in a longevity, usefulness sense), the most significant way to spur sales is the marketing of new "features" that differentiate the new product from the still-useful older products. Marketing focuses on convincing buyers that the new product posseses "must-have" features and a "trendy" appearance, as well as contains purported essential bells and whistles lacking in the old product. For a hundred years, automobiles have been sold this way - model year after model year. And, indeed at times, technological advances have eventually made older models "obsolete" in many ways, though a functional ancient car model will still get a driver to his destination sooner or later. What makes the old car 'obsolete' is very often only the evolution of driver expectations... and it's the job of a company's marketing department to increase those expectations each time a new version is developed. The more new versions successfully marketed, the more sales revenue - at least, until the point is reached where the market resists a new version because of the investment costs relative to buyers' economic conditions.

Some software developers issue new models of basic software mainly because their older designs, while still functional, are no longer compatible with growing numbers of current platforms or with essential emergent technology. Such companies' revenue growth comes primarily from developing new, innovative products for new arenas or finding significantly better ways for their existing products to perform their prior tasks. IMO, Microsoft (as well as many other "big boys" in the software/computer industry) makes their revenue by regularly marketing "new" versions every couple of years regardless of market demand, just as Detroit markets "new" car models each year. The marketing department is then tasked with developing all manner of tactics to somehow stimulate "demand" by convincing the prospective customers that the features added into the new version are "must-have" and "trendy".

When a new version genuinely reflects major technology shifts and presents powerful new features, it will be self-evident. When that is not the case, there will be all manner of puzzlement in the marketplace as many prospective customers ask themselves (and others) what possible genuine benefits the new product offers over the old. IMHO, this is exactly the latter situation... and Windows 8 is simply a product whose time-to-release has come up (in order to meet Microsoft's recurring revenue demands), rather than a product based on genuine, pre-existent market demand. While there's absolutely nothing 'wrong' in that, it's useful to keep it clearly in mind amidst the growing hype and spin.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
I see your point.

However, I don’t necessarily agree with the sentiment, at least not completely anyway.

The upgrade cycle for Microsoft software in general may be arbitrary and the perceived value of the feature set of the upgrade(s) may vary. However, the cost of the product / product line often remains fairly static. A company that continually produces software may be perceived as improving incrementally, although, its not extraordinary if the product seems derivative at some point.

Microsoft could stagnate and likely would still make fairly good sales in OEM preinstalled systems (for a while). However, the competition such as Apple, Google and others wouldn’t stagnate and could increase market share during such a time. Which is not to say they wont gain in market share anyway.

Apple has presumably moved to an annual OS X upgrade cycle. That’s about three OS X full version upgrades for each Windows OS upgrade. Also look how well stagnation worked out for Microsoft in the tablet segment of the market.

The technology market is similar to a lot of species of sharks,….they better keep moving or they will die.

Glen T

join:2003-11-03
BC
One of the interesting aspects of this, is that outside of the group of what I would call "enthusiasts" the typical OS consumer will likely no longer be interested in upgrading their OS. Times have changed from the 90's when we were begging for a new OS. Today, upgrade sales must be minimal because of driver issues and because hardware is cheap to replace. People will get the new OS when they buy a new box.

The other interesting issue is that Bill G. when he was designing Vista (code named Longhorn or whatever) envisioned all kinds of innovations for the new platform that, one by one, were dropped as Vista development dragged on. The interesting part of this is that I don't think any of those innovations (such as a DB based file system) have ever seen the light of day in Win7 or now, Win8.

And Bill G. got put out to pasture as a result of his failure with Vista.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
said by Glen T:

And Bill G. got put out to pasture as a result of his failure with Vista.

Wow, that's an interesting take on history.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


MSeng
Premium,Ex-Mod 2001-08
join:2000-07-13
Ork
kudos:6
reply to Glen T
said by Glen T:

And Bill G. got put out to pasture as a result of his failure with Vista.

That's not even close to accurate.
--
A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.

Glen T

join:2003-11-03
BC
How long was Vista delayed? What was the list of features that was dropped from Vista? Wasn't this the only MS project that Bill personally oversaw, since he wrote BASIC?

Yeah, I know, he retired with full honors to oversee his foundation.

Maybe I overstated. After Vista flopped, Bill put himself out to pasture.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
said by Glen T:

How long was Vista delayed? What was the list of features that was dropped from Vista? Wasn't this the only MS project that Bill personally oversaw, since he wrote BASIC?

Yeah, I know, he retired with full honors to oversee his foundation.

Maybe I overstated. After Vista flopped, Bill put himself out to pasture.

Try again. Maybe use google. Or bing.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us

Glen T

join:2003-11-03
BC
I've got a million of them. Like MS ripping off IBM when they were supposed to be working on OS/2 by using the same team to develop NT.

Really, MS has not had an original idea since BASIC.


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
Ok, good talk.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
reply to Glen T
Could be the first time anyone's ever expressed sympathy for poor ickle IBM.


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
reply to Jan Janowski
Windows 8 has significant and noticeable technical/performance improvements and enhancements over Windows 7; to claim "none exist" is just a display of not searching, looking, or worse: denying they exist. One of them is the noticeable speed and accuracy in rendering, such as "crisper colors" due to:

Windows 8 includes WDDM 1.2 and DirectX Graphics Infrastructure (DXGI) 1.2. The Desktop Window Manager now runs at all times (even on systems with unsupported graphics cards; where DWM now also supports software rendering), and now also includes support for stereoscopic 3D content.

Other major features include preemptive multitasking with finer granularity (DMA buffer, primitive, triangle, pixel, or instruction-level), reduced memory footprint, improved resource sharing, and faster timeout detection and recovery. 16-bit color surface formats (565, 5551, 4444) are mandatory in Windows 8, and Direct3D 11 Video supports YUV 4:4:4/4:2:2/4:2:0/4:1:1 video formats with 8, 10, and 16-bit precision, as well as 4 and 8-bit paletted formats.

I have a question, though: what does it take for one OS to "have benefit" to another? Should I not have the answer to THIS before comparing two OS's??? Personally, I find little reason to upgrade from 7 at this point, due to budget and time. But Windows 8 does have reasons to upgrade.

Some good reads on the topic:

Wikipedia: New/Improved Features to Windows 8
Technet's list of new/improved Win 8 applications/features(*)
Anandtech: more on the WDDM
Benchmarks: better for games(*)
More Resource effecient than Win 7
Windows 8 best OS ever for musicians?
Audio/Video performance enhancements (*)

(*) = possilbe MS source PR

And more, plenty of information out there. For the negative/critical stuff just search "windows 8" and click anything on the first page of results. As the rule of internet goes in 2012: negative trumps positive.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


Michail
Premium
join:2000-08-02
Boynton Beach, FL
kudos:1
reply to Jan Janowski
IMHO, it would be a great OS if they had focused more on the cloud aspects (SkyDrive and live) and ditched the metro. It just looks and acts ugly/unrefined.

They could have left the tablet interface there and just not forced it to be used on a desktop. There is a reason I'm using a desktop and not a tablet.


plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Carpentersville, IL
kudos:3

1 recommendation

said by Michail:

They could have left the tablet interface there and just not forced it to be used on a desktop. There is a reason I'm using a desktop and not a tablet.

The whole Metro interface has been beaten to death on this forum and others like it since it was introduced in the first preview release.

While it would have been nice if Microsoft gave the end user an option (Default to Metro, but allow user to switch back to Win 7 version), the downside is you get the reaction you did in Windows XP. XP defaulted to a "new" start menu GUI, and upon install, most people went in and modified it to look like it did in Windows 2000. I was one of those people, and I know the company I worked for at the time we rolled out XP did the same thing.

Then there is the side that Microsoft wants to try to have the same interface on all your devices, regardless of what it is (the whole reason behind Metro, as far as I can tell). If you're using a Windows Phone, Smartphone, Tablet, Desktop, Surface Table, or Laptop, your "User Interface" is the same. That's great for someone who has never used any of them, as the ability to move between hardware is easy. However, for someone who has used them all, and is able to learn and understand the differences between each, it makes things difficult.

While allowing the end user to select their "start" GUI, Microsoft may have felt that if they give the end user the choice, few people would actually use it, which would defeat the purpose of having a new interface.

So, I feel Microsoft is in a sort of "rock and a hard place" with this. The question they probably asked themselves is which group of people do we upset? That can be a tough decision to make, as every person is your customer, and if at all possible, you don't want to upset any customer.

Finally, there is the side of this that goes along with change. Its a new version, new interface. You either adapt and learn, or you get left behind.

I'm all for change, and while I was one in the beginning who hated Metro when I first saw it, once I actually sat down and started to use Windows 8 on a daily basis, it actually was OK. I figured out how to make Metro do what I want it to for the way I use windows. While I am not currently running Windows 8 due to an incompatibility with McAfee Enterprise 8.8 (as I noted above), once McAfee releases its next version that runs on Windows 8, I'll make the jump, and be very happy about it.

--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner

E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail


Michail
Premium
join:2000-08-02
Boynton Beach, FL
kudos:1
I actually loved the new GUI and start menu when they first came out. I could see the personal benefits to the changes.

Windows 8 got worse for me after a clean install. That gave me the perspective of what most new users will experience. I'll get it fixed back up and be fine. But I know I'll have plenty of time to put in with friends and family when/if they upgrade.

It's just my opinion that MS should include the tablet interface as an optional shell on the desktop. They need to win the tablet market over, not force the desktop market to into a tablet paradigm.

I really do get what they are trying to do. I also get the desktop is sort of "dead". I just don't agree with the way it's being done or the lack polish and refinement.

Once this hits the general public and press it's going to go over poorly.


Octavean
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to plencnerb
You make some interesting points.

I will refer to what I said earlier about Apple presumably moving to an annual OS X update cycle. Ill also add that Apple has seemingly been moving towards merging OS X and iOS at least on a cosmetic UI level. If Microsoft had adopted an equally aggressive upgrade cycle they would have been able to make more subtle changes in a three year timeframe rather then a "like it or lump it" compulsory Metro interface within one OS revision.

However, if it weren’t compulsory many would simply sidestep it as you pointed out.

Glen T

join:2003-11-03
BC

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to plencnerb
said by plencnerb:

While allowing the end user to select their "start" GUI, Microsoft may have felt that if they give the end user the choice, few people would actually use it, which would defeat the purpose of having a new interface.

Yes! This is exactly the point!

The same thing happened with the ribbon bar in MS Office. Given the choice, most users would not use it. Why? Because, for experienced users, it actually reduces their productivity. The ribbon bar is still having a negative impact on my productivity in programs like Excel.

This is a marketing decision, not a usability decision. The interface formerly known as Metro is a one-size-fits-none solution imposed by a company that is once again releasing a "Me Too" product that is too little and too late. The only way that they can ensure adoption is to impose adoption on hapless desktop users.

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to Jan Janowski
I suppose the question is whether or not I would of purchased Windows 8 had it come with the option to disable Metro and have a Start Menu.

That's when you'd know if the enhancements are worth the upgrade fee. I tried windows 8 for a while. It didn't seem faster than windows 7 (except on bootup, in which it shaved a few seconds off, but I use an SSD so the difference was minimal). There were a few tweaks I liked, but for the most part I was pretty indifferent.

So for me I didn't find too many things in Windows 8 I would of upgraded for even if I could of disabled metro.

That doesn't mean that future technology/software might not benefit more from the update OS. Maybe by that time they'll put in an update that does allow us to disable metro.

Glen T

join:2003-11-03
BC
reply to dave
said by dave:

Could be the first time anyone's ever expressed sympathy for poor ickle IBM.

Yeah, as an ISV, we went straight from DOS to OS/2. I've still got an "Official OS/2 Ambassador 1992" medal sitting on my desk. We bet on the wrong horse, but OS/2 was a superior OS that died an untimely death.


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to plencnerb
said by plencnerb:

... there is the side that Microsoft wants to try to have the same interface on all your devices, regardless of what it is (the whole reason behind Metro, as far as I can tell). If you're using a Windows Phone, Smartphone, Tablet, Desktop, Surface Table, or Laptop, your "User Interface" is the same.

The strategm of aiming for the same interface on all devices is a Microsoft corporate tactical decision designed to increase market share/dominance across those devices... to my observation, it has not been "demanded" by users in the marketplace, particularly the desktop-using universe.
said by plencnerb:

... While allowing the end user to select their "start" GUI, Microsoft may have felt that if they give the end user the choice, few people would actually use it, which would defeat the purpose of having a new interface.

If users were to largely opt out of the Metro UI, then it would certainly prove it was never demanded by them. Instead, removal of choice is proof positive of Microsoft placing their corporate strategy ahead of meeting many users' wants/needs in their product. Not providing the user the opportunity to select their interface smacks of corporate arrogance: Microsoft will drag users kicking and screaming into a world that is dominated by Microsoft's one-size-fits-all corporate strategm aimed at cross-market domination, regardless of the wants and needs of a whole class of desktop users whose productivity will seriously suffer as a result. This is the same pathway they chose with the ribbon concept in Office products, and at least for some time, user productivity has suffered... but that's not a cost element Microsoft has to deal with; instead, users have to.
said by plencnerb:

... So, I feel Microsoft is in a sort of "rock and a hard place" with this. The question they probably asked themselves is which group of people do we upset? That can be a tough decision to make, as every person is your customer, and if at all possible, you don't want to upset any customer.

The only rock and hard place Microsoft is in has been a place they've chosen to put themselves. Nowhere is there written some natural requirement that all products must have the same interfaces. When I use a phone, I don't expect it to look or work just like an FM radio, nor do I expect a desktop computer to look or work just like a cell phone. In areas where their usages do overlap, there's no reason on earth why the interfaces can't be similar in those usage cases. But an interface that makes sense on a handheld (with its micro-display) makes no inherent sense on a computer used for... computing.
said by plencnerb:

... Finally, there is the side of this that goes along with change. Its a new version, new interface. You either adapt and learn, or you get left behind.

I have no inherent problem with change, other than that it costs. So I want that cost to be truly needful, not just to enhance the corporate master strategy of somebody else. Whenever a major change is made in how work is done, especially repetitive work like usually performed on a computer, there is both an immediate and a lingering negative impact on efficiency in doing that work... and loss of efficiency carries a cost in time, output, and dollars. This was one of the most immediate negative impacts in the business environment from MS switching Office software to the ribbon instead of menus, and it will have a similar costly impact in changing how the desktop looks and acts. But Microsoft will not experience the costs... its users will. Unless the changes to how a class of software has long worked are truly necessary for sound, cost-effective, technical reasons, they will result in wasted resources. It should prove illuminating to watch how readily business accepts Windows8, considering the negative impact to corporate user training and ongoing productivity.

A real question is what the tangible, real-world benefits of Win8 might be? Especially to the desktop using world, particularly those whose computer usage is heavily into "computing", business, etc.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to Jan Janowski
Of course one real benefit of W8 over W7 would be if you were running the OS on a touch enabled desktop/laptop. Which will be all of the new ones.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


Jan Janowski
Premium
join:2000-06-18
Skokie, IL
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 recommendation

(Touch Enabled) No, I upgraded to a Jog/Shuttle knob in W98/XT, and that allows me to build macros per button... Touch... No... That doesn't give me any improvements over Keyboard shortcuts, JogShuttle Knob, and/or Mouse control...

The whole point of my post is not for a new computer.... but is it worth the $$ to upgrade existing computer? The XT to W7-64 had very obvious feature Improvements that I'm not seeing in W8... XT to W7-64 was a "No-Brainer".... and I jumped...

These 'No-Brainer' features that I'm searching for in W8.... (That jumped right out to be Obvious in W7) seem to be lacking... That was the whole point of my post...

Still Searching.....

--
Looking for 1939 Indian Motocycle


BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

Of course one real benefit of W8 over W7 would be if you were running the OS on a touch enabled desktop/laptop. Which will be all of the new ones.

I really fail to see why anybody would resort to smearing greasy fingers all over the screen of their laptop/desktop when they have a superior input method available in front of them, aka a keyboard and mouse/trackpad. I've tried to be open minded about it, I really have, but...
--
Ron Paul 2012 »www.ronpaul2012.com
Beyond AM. Beyond FM. (((XM)))

Glen T

join:2003-11-03
BC
said by BillRoland:

I really fail to see why anybody would resort to smearing greasy fingers all over the screen of their laptop/desktop when they have a superior input method available in front of them, aka a keyboard and mouse/trackpad. I've tried to be open minded about it, I really have, but...

Ergonomically, it doesn't work in a normal office setting. I chuckle when I watch Daily Planet on Discovery channel, the tech segment, with their big wall display and grand, exagerated gestures, to open a window (probably powered by something like Kinect). It would give you a full body workout, but I can't see doing it all day long.

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2
reply to BillRoland
said by BillRoland:

said by JohnInSJ:

Of course one real benefit of W8 over W7 would be if you were running the OS on a touch enabled desktop/laptop. Which will be all of the new ones.

I really fail to see why anybody would resort to smearing greasy fingers all over the screen of their laptop/desktop when they have a superior input method available in front of them, aka a keyboard and mouse/trackpad. I've tried to be open minded about it, I really have, but...

Absolutely...

I don't know how the people will be able to work with it all day long. Just try to imagine you have to keep your hands not on the top of your desk, but constantly pointing with their fingers to something on the screen.... It's weird how the designers of new (and "preferred" now user interface) don't see any problems here. Don't they know some (if not many) people are buying keyboard and mouse pads to rest their palms on during all day of their work with computers? Why do they're doing that? It's because they are getting tired. And now they have to lift their hands to rich the screen directly... IMO It's dumb (from ergonomic perspective) to force people to do it whole day long.

There is a place for UI for smartphone and there is a place (and the need) for UI for old desktop environment (proven by many years to work just well in business environments). Forcing the new UI will shoot MS in the foot and push businesses to invest in another OS's. Is that the goal behind this change?
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to BillRoland
said by BillRoland:

said by JohnInSJ:

Of course one real benefit of W8 over W7 would be if you were running the OS on a touch enabled desktop/laptop. Which will be all of the new ones.

I really fail to see why anybody would resort to smearing greasy fingers all over the screen of their laptop/desktop when they have a superior input method available in front of them, aka a keyboard and mouse/trackpad. I've tried to be open minded about it, I really have, but...

Yep. If you use touch devices for everything else (tablets, phones, ereaders) and then sit in front of your compute device, your natural inclination to continue doing the same actions to achieve the same results is there. Especially for non-technical people (you know, the ones who spend the most money on stuff.) The "smearing" thing - you wipe the glass now and then
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


JohnInSJ
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Aptos, CA
reply to Jan Janowski
said by Jan Janowski:

The whole point of my post is not for a new computer.... but is it worth the $$ to upgrade existing computer?

And the answer has been given. If you need or want any of the new features, yes. If not, no. For you, it's a no (at release, anyway.)
--
My place : »www.schettino.us


Ericthorn
It only hurts when I laugh
Premium
join:2001-08-10
Paragould, AR
Reviews:
·Paragould.net
·Paragould.net
reply to Jan Janowski
The only reason I'll be running an 8 machine at home is simply for support purposes. Same reason I still run a stand alone XP rig. After playing with it a bit in a vm, there is just nothing there to make me change. I was on XP for years before I changed to 7, and that was only because a game I wanted to play needed Direct X 10, so I had to cave. It's pissed me off to no end that I now have to dual boot 7 and XP because one of my favorite games simply will not run reliably on 7. The company i work at is not going to move to 8, but we are going to have one rig running 8 for the customers that call and we need to help them navigate their own PC. I have firmly railed against this, as we do not support Windows. We support a custom POS system, and it's the customers job to know how to navigate their PC outside of our POS. But invariably we end up having to help customers in their Windows environment.

I feel like Walter saying 'pisses me off'

I guess it keeps the bills getting paid.
--
Ever try stuffing a melted marshmallow up a wildcat's ass? It can be done, but you have to like your job. - This Is The Way The World Ends by James Morrow - Join a DC club, it can't hurt you!


BillRoland
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Ocala, FL
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
reply to JohnInSJ
said by JohnInSJ:

said by BillRoland:

said by JohnInSJ:

Of course one real benefit of W8 over W7 would be if you were running the OS on a touch enabled desktop/laptop. Which will be all of the new ones.

I really fail to see why anybody would resort to smearing greasy fingers all over the screen of their laptop/desktop when they have a superior input method available in front of them, aka a keyboard and mouse/trackpad. I've tried to be open minded about it, I really have, but...

Yep. If you use touch devices for everything else (tablets, phones, ereaders) and then sit in front of your compute device, your natural inclination to continue doing the same actions to achieve the same results is there. Especially for non-technical people (you know, the ones who spend the most money on stuff.) The "smearing" thing - you wipe the glass now and then

I guess all I can say is "we'll see." I wouldn't bet my house on Windows 8 being a raving success.
--
Ron Paul 2012 »www.ronpaul2012.com
Beyond AM. Beyond FM. (((XM)))