News Windows 8 upgrade programme leaked

Point for me is that Vista was aweful and people held onto XP. Because of that, MS failed to maximise it's DX10 runtime and associated games because of it (also DX10 was not 'coder friendly' iirc).

Win7 is truly an excellent OS, stable, 64bit, lightweight compared to Vista and DX11 was a major leap for anyone upgrading from XP..... I still pray for 64bit only apps and games.

Win8 - I have not read much about it, there's not much that people are shouting as the 'must haves' reason to upgrade (unless you own a bulldozer CPU and want that promised 10% performance boost from it's scheduling logic).

I can't help feeling a lot of this is far too biased toward tile based GUI's and getting it to run on ARM.... that's not to say it wont be good, but only to say that so far I see no reason to upgrade, even if they made DX12 Win8 exclusive, games are still 12month away after the OS is released.

I reserve my judgement, as I am sure others will too, only to say that I am content with what I have right now.

 

Most likely Microosft will offer the same thing than what they did with Windows 7. 50%-60% off Windows 8 upgrade, which is a very good price during the pre-order of Windows 8.

As for, is Windows 8 crap or good. I and we all should reserve judgement until the LAST Release Candidate release. They are still 4-5 month of improvements. Already the Alpha to Beta version jump was HUGE in term of improvement. Alpha version of Win8 was unusable.

One thing I have to say, is that Logitech will break Windows 8 experience. As in Windows 8 side scrolling with the mouse wheel is a must. The problem is that when you install Logitech drivers, your mouse side scrolling doesn't work anymore, because of this issue: http://pretentiousname.com/setpoint_hwheel/index.html
(that is also why it doesn't work in most programs, beside Office, and a few web browsers... then when you remove the drivers, it works perfectly everywhere else).

 

This is actually good news, and this is why.

It encourages people to upgrade their old crappy computers. And that's better for everyone. The less bad-spec machines there are in the market and the higher the average spec is - the better games, software and prices we all get.

 

Actually, no.
Vista was ahead of it's time. The only people who enjoyed Vista, was people that had:
-> Multi-core CPU (dual core at least)
-> 64-bit CPU (for Vista 64-bit, 32-bit was to be avoided)
-> 2GB of RAM
-> Geforce 6600 series or better (or equivalent from ATI back then)
-> latest peripheral and hardware technology.
In other words... us, computer enthusiasts / gamers.

3 years later, Windows 7 come out... the above specs, 2005 high-end specs, became mainstream, mainly because Intel started to make a graphic solution that isn't an insult to humanity so that it can handle Aero without struggling, for a smooth experience without killing people laptop battery life. And OEM stop selling crap at high prices. No more Pentium 4's, No more Pentium D's. no more 1GB of RAM.
Yes, Windows 7 was greatly optimized, but I don't think it was the main point.

Also reviewers didn't know how to test Vista. Most of them where disabling big performance boosting features, like prefetech (which actually worked in Vista) and superfetch.. even disabled Aero (which you don't want to do, as you want to have the GPU draw the interface), so they were showing Vista poor performance. Mix all that with manuufacture that went "We COOOULD make our product Vista ready... I mean XP 64-bit drivers works.. but let's hide that... yes. Let's re-relase the same product, with a different color and model number, and those one will have the Vista drivers. We will take this opportunity to have everyone upgrade our product to the new one, even those you just got it! hehehe! Brilliant!", Well that didn't work, and also hurt Vista.

My 2005 old computer (still using today by my father), ran Vista 64-bit better than XP. It had an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.2GHz Socket 939 (750$ CPU at the time), Nforce 4 32XSLI, Geforce 6600GT 128MB (later GTX 260), 2GB DDR1 at 400MHz. So yes.. most people, including many gamers, didn't have this kind of hardware... until the mid life of Vista when the core 2 duo was out, which was a bit too late to rebuild Vista reputation. My 2008 laptop ran Vista above and beyond too.

My laptop is the Dell Latitude E6400. It has a Core 2 Duo P8400, 4GB of RAM, Nvidia Quadro NVS 160M. Dell had all it's drivers and features work perfectly at release, while those who picked XP... well let's say that it took a nice 2 years for them to have them. Plus those who picked Vista 64-bit, got a nice 9 hours of battery life, with the 9-cell battery, while XP users only got 7. This is mainly due of XP lack of any power management system. (make that 10hours with Windows 7, and now ~11hours with WIndows8)

DirectX11 had nothing to do with OS. DirectX10 was not aimed at games... it was, like Vista, to provide a new ground for evolving DirectX. It needed a new kernel architecture, which Vista provided. That is why XP didn't support DirectX 10. And that was why DirectX10 didn't offer much to gaming... in fact very little compared to other versions of DirectX

Something is new... people complain.
-> People complained on Vista start menu.. which now everyone loves (Windows 7 didn't touch it)
-> People complained on the transparency on windows (Aero)
-> People complained on the task bar of Windows 7, and now everyone likes it.
-> People complained on the ribbon bar, and now the majority of people like it.
-> Microsoft unified many control panel element into 1 single look... people complained as it doesn't have tabs like before.
and I can go on.... people want change, but don't want change.

Windows 8 will be DirectX 11.1. Which the latest AMD Radeon card and Geforce card are 98-99% compatible already. So they can't mention "DirectX11.1" ready because of it. The missing supported features aren't related to gaming at all. It's related to those who do advance CAD work.

 

I'll be getting Windows 8 anyway due to the fact that no matter how much people complain, Microsoft has made its choice to put touch and desktop together, so you may as well get used to it and I actually prefer some of the features of metro, and I like the idea of being able to sync up my desktop, tablet and eventually phone.

 

This without the attitude

 

I'll be holding off for Windows 8 SP1

 

People complaining about the usability of Windows8 really shouldn't. It takes all of 2min to get used to the metro start screen instead of a start menu, areas of which are a big improvement (live tiles showing weather, mail, facebook, twitter etc. notifications, with more to come.

The desktop environment is currently exactly the same as Windows7, with some improvements under the hood. While I find that disappointing (I'd have liked the metro styling to continue right through), it looks like it will please many here.

I've been running the Release Candidate as my main OS since its release, and the only problem I've come across is Autodesk AutoCAD (2012 or 2013) crashing on a regular basis. I'll put this down to shoddy coding on Autodesk's part, because all my other programs (photoshop, zune, office, etc.etc.) work perfectly well. I might have had one blue screen in that time, think it was a problem with speedfan, but other than that it's been rock solid.

There may not be enough improvements to persuade some to upgrade from Windows7, but I think Windows8 will still be a very good OS in its own right, just a little conservative imo.

 

Well said. Very well said indeed.

 

What attitude?

 

No way and No Thanks

My Windows 7 is fine and after the very expensive Vista Upgrade I did that just turned out to be a load of crap there is no way I am ungrading.

Old saying "if it is not broken don't fix it" hello to wise words.

And from what I have seen with Windows 8 all Microsoft are doing is trying to get some more money in to suck up to their shareholders,,,,,, no thanks and take it where the sun does not shine MS.

Rip of company MS at it again.

 

This thread's a masterclass in demonstrating this fact. See also: Ubuntu when it switched to the Unity interface, or Facebook timeline, or whenever a multiplayer game gets patched.

The voucher upgrade sounds interesting - I am on the verge of building a new PC, but was holding off until Windows 8 is out. Any indication whether the voucher will be available with OEM copies of Win 7?

 

The ol' carrot for early adopters..

Tried the evaluation copy for a few weeks and was not impressed enough to go head first on release, by some distance.

Ill wait for some proper feedback from friends, like I have with the last 4 MS operating systems.

 

What evaluation copy? There is no evaluation copy of Windows 8.
The only thing that is officially out is Windows 8 Consumer Preview... which means BETA. In other words: "Here is a stable version of Windows 8, it's half done, and most likely buggy as ****. Please tell us what you think about it, and if you find any issues, so that we can have them or most of them fixed at the next beta release".

You cannot evaluate anything as long as it's not complete or at least at Release Candidate (that means: "We truly think that this version is really good to a point of releasing it. Our testing department is really confident on this version. But an OS, especially today, is big and complicated, that it's extremely hard to test all possibility to ensure that no bugs or issues arises. If you experience any issues, now is the time to speak up. Big Thanks!"

 

So why are you using Windows 7? Windows 95/98/2000 all wasn't broken. What's the problem?

 

Id only upgrade if Microsoft handed me a $million$.

 

I apologise. I meant the consumer preview.

I can see you feel strongly that Win 8 gets a fair crack and I am not unwilling to upgrade once I'm fully informed. I've simply learnt from my own experience that waiting some time until after its released could/probably will save issues, problems or a pita.

 

Windows 8 is poo!

Metro is useless on a desktop PC

I haz no interest

That is all.

This is my opinion. I appreciate it may differ from others' opinion. That's the nature of opinion.

I tried it, I hated it, and I think Metro makes zero sense on a desktop PC.

 

I feel I have only just got use to windows 7, where it really has probably been a few years now since I upgraded (November 2010 to be precise). I have no issues at all with Windows 7 so rather than buying 8, even if it was only $15 for me, I would rather save that $15 unless 8 can proove to me that it can offer me more than 7, which at this point in time, I cant see how it possibly can. I am now on 7 at work and home and its nice to be Sync'd for a change.

 

Windows 7 had a big buzz about it, pretty much every article I read had people salivating over it.

On top of that it replaced Vista which whether you like it or loath it (I liked it) was generally unpopular.

I do not see any of the big love or anticipation for Windows 8 that I saw for Windows 7. I will get it when I build a new PC but will not make an effort to get it before that.