Slashdot Mirror
The Three Flavors of Windows 8
First time accepted submitter Kelerei writes "Windows 8 has been confirmed as the official name for the next x86/x64 version of Windows, which will be released in two editions: a home edition (simply named 'Windows 8') featuring an updated Windows Explorer, Task Manager, improved multi-monitor support and 'the ability to switch languages on the fly,' while a professional edition ('Windows 8 Pro') adds features for businesses and technical professionals such as encryption, virtualization and domain connectivity. Windows Media Center will not be included in the Pro edition and will be available separately as part of a 'media pack' add-on. A third edition, branded as 'Windows RT,' will be available for ARM-based systems."
Oh look, a shill post in the first message.
You're supposed to wait a bit so as to not be so obvious. /tip
--
BMO
Growing up "RT" was code for "Rock Tit" A.K.A. Stiff Nipples. Although I can't say that the RT name choice gives me any...
I've been working with Win8 at Intel where I test graphics card drivers. Of all the Windows versions I've ever used (all the way back to v3.1) Windows 8 is the most retarded version I've ever seen! Not only does it hide even more from the user, treating you like you're some mentally-challenged child that has to be kept from hurting yourself, but flat-out stupid things like Safe Mode access being disabled by default! "System Restore" or "System Repair" should NOT be the only option you have when something goes wrong! Yes, you can enable it, but you have to jump through some hoops to do it! Speaking of hoops, you have to jump through a few of those just to get to what in previous versions of Windows were basic system resources, like the Control Panel, My Computer, etc.. Seriously, it's like it's designed for idiot children. At least with Windows 7, I can turn off all the bullshit and make it a functional operating system, but Windows 8, by design, won't let you do enough of that to satisfy me. Is this what computing is coming down to? I may switch everything over to Linux yet.
While I will admit that the technical underpinnings of Windows 8 and Server 8 are a pretty reasonable improvement over 7/2008 R2, the Metro UI is a big step backwards in terms of desktop usability for all but the most basic users and the way they've included some bits of it - seemingly at random - in the server platform is mystifying to me.
If the whole Metro tiles thing was just a front-end to make it easier for average users to find, organise and launch their applications then I'd be fine with it, but it's not, it's a whole new suite of "apps" in addition to all the existing desktop versions, only without silly things like multitasking included.
Put it this way, as someone who has been using Windows in one form or another for close to 20 years, I really shouldn't have to spend 5 minutes trying to work out where the hell they've moved "Shut Down" to because it's behind a totally un-signposted hotspot at the bottom right of the taskbar and then a non-obvious icon labelled "Settings" and finally the "Power" option under that (Yes, Alt-F4 still works, but that's hardly the point, or useful over a windowed RDP session).
Really wish MS would stop with all of the micromanaged 'versions' of Windows. It adds complexity where none is needed. A home user doesn't need those features but it doesn't hurt to include them. A business user probably doesn't need media center features but again it doesn't hurt to include them. I don't know what their 'game' is here as I don't see a profit motive for splitting up all of these offerings. Are they seriously hoping someone will buy two different versions to get everything they need?
Also, what's with the X86/X64 offerings? Any decent OS should allow you to just boot into the proper kernel. Requiring a dedicated install to switch between x86/x64 is just stupid not to put too fine a point on it.
The customers I support will continue to buy whatever the cheapest version is and then get pissed at me when I can't join it to their domain.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Microsoft is trying to "appropriate" another established term to create an air of legitimacy of their products and imply capabilities that they do not have.
RTOS is a common name for a "Real-Time Operating System", systems that are commonly used on ARM, and, as their name implies, have real-time capabilities that Windows, of any flavor, never had and likely never will. Please note that "RT" was used for this purpose since at least 1973 (RT-11 operating system by DEC).
Let's look back to Microsoft previous efforts on this path. Many years ago they pulled out of nowhere the "Digital Nervous System" advertising slogan, apparently for no purpose other than to create confusion with DNS, Domain Name System. More recently, again, out of nowhere they called one of the descendants of their unholy marriage of OLE and DDE, ".NET", what would be a really stupid name if it wasn't a standard top-leven domain, and sounded somehow related to ".com", a typical term for an Internet-based business. On top of this, Microsoft was extremely persistent in inventing trademarked terms that sound generic -- "Windows", "Word" are actual trademarks, and "MS SQL Server" is constantly mentioned as "SQL Server", even though the former is a Microsoft trademark and the latter is a generic name for a database server using SQL language that covers dozens of Microsoft competitors.
How about a lawsuit from all RTOS developers (including at least two flavors of Linux-based ones)?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
For some reason a lot of sites seem to miss it. There are four versions, Windows 8, Windows 8 Pro, Windows 8 Enterprise and Windows RT. http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2012/04/16/announcing-the-windows-8-editions.aspx
x86_64 only means it won't run on 32bit processors, not that it won't run 32 bit software. There's no way they'd break that much software intentionally.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
The Metro UI is a heap of shit on the desktop. It wastes too much space, requires far too much mouse travel, is wholly unsuited to the 100+ program icons that most users would have in a typical start menu. It isn't even discoverable either, being hidden in the corner with no clue its there. It can be fixed but as it stands in the consumer preview it is horrible. It needs a launcher icon (e.g. reinstate the windows logo), multiple selection, sort functionality, zoom in / zoom out, program grouping and more besides. With all that it might stand a chance as a replacement for the Start menu.
After installation, a glowing hologram of Clippy appears and gives the user three choices.
Red flavor - Destruction. Win8 destroys itself to revert back to the previously installed OS. Network port is permanently disabled.
Blue flavor - Control. Keeps Win8 installed, but presents only a command line interface. Network port is permanently disabled.
Green flavor - Synthesis. Keeps Metro UI as a fancy DOS shell. Network port is permanently disabled.
Yeah, what sort of software developer would ever need to look up documentation or consult an email while they were coding?
Metro is about MS making a homogenous look and feel across all possible platforms, and thus, having to go to the least common denominator (cell phone interfaces) for all of them.
It's about attempting to leverage their PC market share to make a push into the tablet and cell markets.
Once you realize this, the rest follows naturally.
Check your premises.
I'll say this: if it weren't for Metro I would unquestionably recommend Windows 8 as an upgrade to Windows 7 and especially Vista/XP. The UI's generally clean, they've updated many of the things that needed updating (like the task manager or the file transfer dialog) and boot times are improved.
However, the forced inclusion of Metro through their "start screen" idea is flawed at best, a deal-breaker at worst. No, it's not utterly unusable, as some people might say, but it is a lot less convenient than the start menu. It's a needless downgrade from something which took less space, less mouse movement, fewer clicks and especially which fit with the aesthetic of the rest of the OS better. As it is there's a fairly jarring jump between the appearance of the desktop and the Metro tiles, making it feel like you're running two different OS. If the start screen let me use Windows programs more efficiently, it would've been good (and it's entirely possible to make it do so, Microsoft just didn't do it). As it is, programs take way too much space for no reason, getting access to things takes too many clicks, many traditional features are locked behind a "pretty" UI and it generally feels a bit schizophrenic.
However, my biggest gripe isn't actually the start screen, it's the "Charms". Whereas the bottom-left corner opens up the start screen, the right border opens up the charms panel, which has things like wifi strength and such; that much is good. However, in order to do the extremely unusual action of shutting down or hibernating the computer, you have to go into Settings, then Shutdown, all of which AFTER having opened the Charms menu. How's that for intuitive?
Make the start screen more efficient and put a prominent power button in there and I'll be a lot warmer to the OS. As it is Windows 7 still does the job well enough to stop me from moving on. Oh and, the fact they've shoved Metro in Windows Server 8 (even with the "desktop experience" pack disabled) is utterly insane.