Even on an SSD. Browser performance in 8 is better than 7 (and yes on benchmark systems with SSD); multimedia performance is better, etc.
There are a few benchmarks where win7 wins out; battery life and 3d performance in particular that ive seen -- although both are tied tightly to the drivers which are still ramping up.
Why the insistence of having it default to something? Dont check either box! Force users to pick "track me" or "don't track me".
Anyone who just clicks "OK" deserves no privacy.
I agree to a point, but after just having to update Java again, I am sick to death of having to carefully navigate its update wizard every 3 days to ensure vulnerabilities are patched while not installing whatever SHIT they keep trying to sneak in.
People deserve sensible defaults. If I didn't install chrome or the google toolbar the last 27 updates in a row, don't try again this week. I don't "deserve no privacy" just because I want to just push OK and get on with my day and not play the java-updater dance again.
It is actually stating the uselessness of having achieved "snappiness" now, by an OS, when hardware progress has provided it for everyone, including 11 year old OS from the same company.
Ah, but 8 is faster than 7, and 7 is faster than Vista on the same hardware. XP is pretty quick too... but it's a steaming pile of an OS, and part of the reason its quick is part of the reason its a steaming pile.
The focus of civilian aviation now isn't on speed, but cost - finding new ways to make the planes ever more economical to operate, either by increasing fuel efficiency (Fuel being a major cost) or to cram more paying passangers onboard to reduce the per-passanger cost.
Ah, well if we aren't focussed on speed and want to optimize per passenger cost -- that's a solved problem too; they are called boats.:)
Wouldn't that suggest that the new Start screen is a failure then?
Not at all. Microsoft doesn't expect or want you to use the start screen to launch programs. They noted in windows 7 / vista that people had gradually shifted to using pinned apps for the majority of what they used to use the start menu for, so they replaced the start menu with the start screen, redesigned for the one purpose for which it was still used -- search. And they did so in a way that was tablet friendly.
The idea with the new start screen precisely that desktop mode users would NOT constantly to open it to launch commonly used software. That's no longer what its for.
Sure they peddle reports as part of their business. But there is a difference between advertising that you can buy reports from them, and them cold-calling you and trying to pressure you into buying a report.
Cold-calling is hardly an unusual business practice.
If you buy a new PC it will have win8 on it; its not really a choice so much as a default. So the question at hand is whether there is any reason to raise a screaming fuss that its going to have windows 8 on it.
The answer is no. There is not.
With vista there were trade offs -- it did a lot of things better than XP, like the security model. It did a few things worse then XP -- drivers were still immature, and the new security model got in the way of a lot of poorly written legacy software. There were good reasons to go with Vista but there were good reasons to stay with XP.
There really isn't any compelling reason cling to 7 over 8.
first and foremost, there is no start button... that will leave many users stumped... which will mean millions of cumulated wasted hours around the world with people merely figuring out how to open up the program they are supposed to be productive with
Agreed. I think there should be a visible start button in desktop mode for users on a desktop who will be using a mouse. Enterprises may just install one when they roll it out. That's what we're seriously looking at doing... disabling hot corners and adding a button to the task bar to open the start menu.
Millions of cumulated hours of lost productivity averted.
Hardly seems worth getting into a lather over, really.
"snappier" is just marketing bullshit for "we can't say its faster because that would be misrepresentation because we can't actually prove it, so we'll just use something that sounds similar but that we can't get into legal hot water over"
Fine. The UI is faster. I originally said snappier because that more accurately describes the experience, but I'll play your silly little word games if you insist.
The only problem I see with MS's actions is that, according to some other posts here, the standard says that DNT must be non-default.
We're getting into where pedants like to split hairs.
Lets try and define a 'default'; how about "it is something that is set without user interaction".
When you install IE10, you reach a wizard box that says: quick settings:
x is set
y is set
DNT is set
custom settings
choose what you want for x, y , DNT...
The user is given 2 choices. The user cannot push "next" without actively selecting one. There is no "default".
The user must decide how to proceed. Its true that "quick settings" is the first option, and its true that "quick settings" is less effort.
However, in my opinion at least, it satisfies the criteria of not being a "default" setting.
Seems to me that MS could get around this by having something in Windows that pops up the first time someone starts up IE, which asks them "do you want to enable Do Not Track?", with the "No" box being checked by default, but forcing the user to click "OK" to select this, and allowing them to select the "Yes" box first if they want.
Which is essentially what is going on, except that:
a) neither "box" is checked - the user has to choose quick settings or custom settings.
b) DNT is not its own wizard page; its included with quick settings.
Frankly, I think your version is inferior. If you are going to have a dedicated popup/wizard page for DNT, why have you check "No" by default? Just provide 2 separate buttons: "Yes" and "No".
Also, the wording you use has double negatives. "Do you want to enable Do Not Track" is a cognitive disaster. You don't present users with the option to "enable something not to happen".
It should just say: "Do you want to enable online advertisers to track you?" with a yes button and a no button. With neither set as default.
Windows 8 has all the security patches windows 7 does. Its not a whole new OS from new cloth or anything.
But I agree I can't imagine people upgrading windows 7 for what win 8 has to offer.
But I also can't really see any reason to freak out and avoid win 8 when your next computer ships with it; despite slashdot's endless screams against any change of any kind.
Plus it is shaping up to be a good tablet os; and since it can run desktop apps, that's going to make a win8 tablet a lot more useful to me than an ipad.
(And again, WinRT can take a flying leap out of a window as far as I'm concerned.)
Nope. "Productivity" means you're producing something. A tablet is a consumption-only device; you don't produce anything with a tablet.
Nope.
a) You can use windows 8 on a desktop, where it's quicker than windows 7, and you can produce as much as you like.
b) Lots of people use tablets for productivity. One of my clients outside sales reps carry tablets to complete on-site invoices. They are faster and more convenient than using laptops; making them more productive than they carried around laptops.
Interestingly, the tabelet app for the POS system is lacking some occasionally needed features of the full desktop software. We're actually all looking forward to Windows8 tablets that can run the full client; as well as be able to run some other occasionally required software there is no tablet app for.
Where is it written that Microsoft must force users of one device category to use the same interface as a completely different device category, no matter how flawed it is for that device?
I view tablets as touchscreen computers, not oversize smartphones; i want to be able to run the same programs on my computer as my tablet.
Google and Apple have done this right - a different UI layer and API over a (mostly) common lower system
The common lower system is worthless because it can't run the same programs.
This way you can have a user experience that is tailored to the device you're using.
And I can only run apps that are tailored to the device. That's the problem.
Android does this. Chrome OS does this. iOS does this. Mac OS X does this.
And they all got it wrong IMO; I'm actually genuinely looking forward to being able to buy a tablet that is actually good at being a tablet (Metro) while still being a computer ABLE TO RUN all my desktop software when I want it to.
Which boils down to "pay alot of money for a service pack to Windows 7
or don't, and just keep using windows 7 until your PC falls apart, and then buy a new one with windows8 or perhaps by then windows9 on it. I don't see any reason at this point to rush out and buy the "upgrade" version.
no the moron is the guy who thinks win8 is going to ruin his desktop productivity; desktop mode is windows 7 but snappier. Please explain how that is going to ruin anyone's productivity.
For me it's quite simple Windows 8 interface doesn't make me more productive.
Unless you use a tablet; where its just fine. Or count the fact its genuinely snappier than Windows 7... both of which are positives for productivity.
Looking at my physical desktop, I don't have fancy clocks, tons of post-its, shinny gadgets... No, just a couple of books, some papers. I don't want distractions. I want to be focused on my work.
And when you launch 'desktop mode' its pretty much windows 7; but faster, and even fewer distractions. Sounds good to me.
Really, I've been running windows 8 on one box for a couple months now. My biggest complaints are that there isn't a button on the task bar for the start menu -- its 'hot corners' and the shutdown command is a bit klutzier to get to. The former is an easy tweak to fix if i care enough; disable hotcorners, add a 'button'. The latter even easier.
The new start menu is really no less efficient to use than the old one on a desktop. Its a bit more distracting that it goes full screen, but thats about it, and as a result I'm motivated to pin more apps so i use it pretty rarely.
I expect we'll see some refinements over the next little bit, but really, on a desktop I never use the metro tile stuff, so its just not relevant. I cleaned up my start menu so there are no pinned tiles for shit i don't care about, same as i've always removed irrelevant default crap from my start menu. Overall the win8 desktop experience is fine with minimal tweaks.
As a tablet/ultrabook OS its a big improvement over win7.
WinRT (ARM)-- I'm not impressed or interested in it whatsoever, and hope it gets axed.
simply doing a line item comparison of what the macbook pro COMES WITH yields a competitively priced unit if you spec a computer with the same specs... but if you WANT anything else, its a complete rip off.
Me, I want a tower PC with a fast i7 and a middling-high end video card, SSD primary, spinning drive secondary, blu-ray, sd card, bluetooth, wifi, gigabit, 16GB RAM.
And I built one for ~$1800 or so.
I can't get a mac pro that suits my needs for anything near that. I can get a mac pro that comes with an extra expensive cpu I don't need or want instead of the video card i do need and want. We can talk all day about how that extra cpu is priced competitively... but i don't need that cpu i need a video card... for example. So if I build a PC to my specs, and then say, what would a mac version cost, it would be a LOT MORE and it would still be missing things.
CyanogenMod is a community-maintained, enhanced version of Android, which you can replace the regular Android operating system on tablet and smartphones with, by flashing the ROM.
Given how things like cameras and stuff frequently don't work, im not sure i'd choose the adjective "enhanced"; i'd go with "alternate". I know lots of people who run the stock android because the so-called "enhanced one" is more trouble than they feel its worth; including me.
Slashdot Mirror
Advertisers don't need to track me in order for content on the web to be free.
The owner of the billboard on the highway just needs to know how many cars drive by it, and what part of town its in.
It doesn't need to know where I live, whether I like Jazz, or how many times a week I buy coffee to be effective advertising.
Just because it would be helpful to advertisers to know this stuff, doesn't mean they need it to be effective.
The web is no different.
Not on an SSD, which is becoming standard.
Even on an SSD. Browser performance in 8 is better than 7 (and yes on benchmark systems with SSD); multimedia performance is better, etc.
There are a few benchmarks where win7 wins out; battery life and 3d performance in particular that ive seen -- although both are tied tightly to the drivers which are still ramping up.
7 and 8 are noticeably different in that 8 is faster.
there are plenty of other reasons to choose either 7 or 8 over XP
Why the insistence of having it default to something? Dont check either box! Force users to pick "track me" or "don't track me".
Anyone who just clicks "OK" deserves no privacy.
I agree to a point, but after just having to update Java again, I am sick to death of having to carefully navigate its update wizard every 3 days to ensure vulnerabilities are patched while not installing whatever SHIT they keep trying to sneak in.
People deserve sensible defaults. If I didn't install chrome or the google toolbar the last 27 updates in a row, don't try again this week. I don't "deserve no privacy" just because I want to just push OK and get on with my day and not play the java-updater dance again.
It is actually stating the uselessness of having achieved "snappiness" now, by an OS, when hardware progress has provided it for everyone, including 11 year old OS from the same company.
Ah, but 8 is faster than 7, and 7 is faster than Vista on the same hardware. XP is pretty quick too... but it's a steaming pile of an OS, and part of the reason its quick is part of the reason its a steaming pile.
Get another job then.
I'm not sure he really has the time to take on even more work.
What idiocy is this? Maybe if YOU buy a new PC, it will have win8, but me? I decide what I buy, not you.
"you" being the "generic you"; as in the vast majority of new pcs sold ship with current version of windows. Get over yourself.
So you start imagining that it is more "snappy" than windows 7.
Not imagining. It it is faster on the same hardware.
over a 11 year old OS, with unnoticeable snappiness difference when using an SSD.
Ah yes, lets glorify XP, the OS we mocked for a decade for needing 'root' for most software to run; and ridiculed for how easily it got infected.
In reality, not affected by your Stockholm Syndrome induced defence mechanisms, there is. E.g. windows 7 works reasonably well on an older PC?
And that is relevant how? (I said "new" in the previous post, so gibbering about how 7 runs on an older PC is beside the point.
As to your older PC? What of it? I never suggested there was any compelling reason to upgrade to 8 from 7. In fact I agreed there wasn't one.
I merely said there was no compelling reason to cling to 7 instead of going with 8 on new hardware.
To be fair, it only had to be better than myspace.
The focus of civilian aviation now isn't on speed, but cost - finding new ways to make the planes ever more economical to operate, either by increasing fuel efficiency (Fuel being a major cost) or to cram more paying passangers onboard to reduce the per-passanger cost.
Ah, well if we aren't focussed on speed and want to optimize per passenger cost -- that's a solved problem too; they are called boats. :)
Wouldn't that suggest that the new Start screen is a failure then?
Not at all. Microsoft doesn't expect or want you to use the start screen to launch programs. They noted in windows 7 / vista that people had gradually shifted to using pinned apps for the majority of what they used to use the start menu for, so they replaced the start menu with the start screen, redesigned for the one purpose for which it was still used -- search. And they did so in a way that was tablet friendly.
The idea with the new start screen precisely that desktop mode users would NOT constantly to open it to launch commonly used software. That's no longer what its for.
Sure they peddle reports as part of their business. But there is a difference between advertising that you can buy reports from them, and them cold-calling you and trying to pressure you into buying a report.
Cold-calling is hardly an unusual business practice.
If you buy a new PC it will have win8 on it; its not really a choice so much as a default. So the question at hand is whether there is any reason to raise a screaming fuss that its going to have windows 8 on it.
The answer is no. There is not.
With vista there were trade offs -- it did a lot of things better than XP, like the security model. It did a few things worse then XP -- drivers were still immature, and the new security model got in the way of a lot of poorly written legacy software. There were good reasons to go with Vista but there were good reasons to stay with XP.
There really isn't any compelling reason cling to 7 over 8.
No worries there. If you look at the thread, I've already trashed the RT version a couple times. Win8 = promising. WinRT = suck.
first and foremost, there is no start button... that will leave many users stumped... which will mean millions of cumulated wasted hours around the world with people merely figuring out how to open up the program they are supposed to be productive with
Agreed. I think there should be a visible start button in desktop mode for users on a desktop who will be using a mouse. Enterprises may just install one when they roll it out. That's what we're seriously looking at doing... disabling hot corners and adding a button to the task bar to open the start menu.
Millions of cumulated hours of lost productivity averted.
Hardly seems worth getting into a lather over, really.
"snappier" is just marketing bullshit for "we can't say its faster because that would be misrepresentation because we can't actually prove it, so we'll just use something that sounds similar but that we can't get into legal hot water over"
Fine. The UI is faster. I originally said snappier because that more accurately describes the experience, but I'll play your silly little word games if you insist.
The only problem I see with MS's actions is that, according to some other posts here, the standard says that DNT must be non-default.
We're getting into where pedants like to split hairs.
Lets try and define a 'default'; how about "it is something that is set without user interaction".
When you install IE10, you reach a wizard box that says:
quick settings:
x is set
y is set
DNT is set
custom settings
choose what you want for x, y , DNT...
The user is given 2 choices. The user cannot push "next" without actively selecting one. There is no "default".
The user must decide how to proceed. Its true that "quick settings" is the first option, and its true that "quick settings" is less effort.
However, in my opinion at least, it satisfies the criteria of not being a "default" setting.
Seems to me that MS could get around this by having something in Windows that pops up the first time someone starts up IE, which asks them "do you want to enable Do Not Track?", with the "No" box being checked by default, but forcing the user to click "OK" to select this, and allowing them to select the "Yes" box first if they want.
Which is essentially what is going on, except that:
a) neither "box" is checked - the user has to choose quick settings or custom settings.
b) DNT is not its own wizard page; its included with quick settings.
Frankly, I think your version is inferior. If you are going to have a dedicated popup/wizard page for DNT, why have you check "No" by default? Just provide 2 separate buttons: "Yes" and "No".
Also, the wording you use has double negatives. "Do you want to enable Do Not Track" is a cognitive disaster. You don't present users with the option to "enable something not to happen".
It should just say: "Do you want to enable online advertisers to track you?" with a yes button and a no button. With neither set as default.
Windows 8 has all the security patches windows 7 does. Its not a whole new OS from new cloth or anything.
But I agree I can't imagine people upgrading windows 7 for what win 8 has to offer.
But I also can't really see any reason to freak out and avoid win 8 when your next computer ships with it; despite slashdot's endless screams against any change of any kind.
Plus it is shaping up to be a good tablet os; and since it can run desktop apps, that's going to make a win8 tablet a lot more useful to me than an ipad.
(And again, WinRT can take a flying leap out of a window as far as I'm concerned.)
Nope. "Productivity" means you're producing something. A tablet is a consumption-only device; you don't produce anything with a tablet.
Nope.
a) You can use windows 8 on a desktop, where it's quicker than windows 7, and you can produce as much as you like.
b) Lots of people use tablets for productivity. One of my clients outside sales reps carry tablets to complete on-site invoices. They are faster and more convenient than using laptops; making them more productive than they carried around laptops.
Interestingly, the tabelet app for the POS system is lacking some occasionally needed features of the full desktop software. We're actually all looking forward to Windows8 tablets that can run the full client; as well as be able to run some other occasionally required software there is no tablet app for.
Where is it written that Microsoft must force users of one device category to use the same interface as a completely different device category, no matter how flawed it is for that device?
I view tablets as touchscreen computers, not oversize smartphones; i want to be able to run the same programs on my computer as my tablet.
Google and Apple have done this right - a different UI layer and API over a (mostly) common lower system
The common lower system is worthless because it can't run the same programs.
This way you can have a user experience that is tailored to the device you're using.
And I can only run apps that are tailored to the device. That's the problem.
Android does this. Chrome OS does this. iOS does this. Mac OS X does this.
And they all got it wrong IMO; I'm actually genuinely looking forward to being able to buy a tablet that is actually good at being a tablet (Metro) while still being a computer ABLE TO RUN all my desktop software when I want it to.
Which boils down to "pay alot of money for a service pack to Windows 7
or don't, and just keep using windows 7 until your PC falls apart, and then buy a new one with windows8 or perhaps by then windows9 on it. I don't see any reason at this point to rush out and buy the "upgrade" version.
no the moron is the guy who thinks win8 is going to ruin his desktop productivity; desktop mode is windows 7 but snappier. Please explain how that is going to ruin anyone's productivity.
Well shit, that's all my objections taken care of. Because we all know "snappierness" is the only objective metric that matte
You complained it made you less productive. It being essentially the same and faster is a direct counter to that comment.
For me it's quite simple Windows 8 interface doesn't make me more productive.
Unless you use a tablet; where its just fine. Or count the fact its genuinely snappier than Windows 7... both of which are positives for productivity.
Looking at my physical desktop, I don't have fancy clocks, tons of post-its, shinny gadgets... No, just a couple of books, some papers. I don't want distractions. I want to be focused on my work.
And when you launch 'desktop mode' its pretty much windows 7; but faster, and even fewer distractions. Sounds good to me.
Really, I've been running windows 8 on one box for a couple months now. My biggest complaints are that there isn't a button on the task bar for the start menu -- its 'hot corners' and the shutdown command is a bit klutzier to get to. The former is an easy tweak to fix if i care enough; disable hotcorners, add a 'button'. The latter even easier.
The new start menu is really no less efficient to use than the old one on a desktop. Its a bit more distracting that it goes full screen, but thats about it, and as a result I'm motivated to pin more apps so i use it pretty rarely.
I expect we'll see some refinements over the next little bit, but really, on a desktop I never use the metro tile stuff, so its just not relevant. I cleaned up my start menu so there are no pinned tiles for shit i don't care about, same as i've always removed irrelevant default crap from my start menu. Overall the win8 desktop experience is fine with minimal tweaks.
As a tablet/ultrabook OS its a big improvement over win7.
WinRT (ARM)-- I'm not impressed or interested in it whatsoever, and hope it gets axed.
Mac Pro are competitive for the money too
that one depends a lot on what you WANT.
simply doing a line item comparison of what the macbook pro COMES WITH yields a competitively priced unit if you spec a computer with the same specs... but if you WANT anything else, its a complete rip off.
Me, I want a tower PC with a fast i7 and a middling-high end video card, SSD primary, spinning drive secondary, blu-ray, sd card, bluetooth, wifi, gigabit, 16GB RAM.
And I built one for ~$1800 or so.
I can't get a mac pro that suits my needs for anything near that. I can get a mac pro that comes with an extra expensive cpu I don't need or want instead of the video card i do need and want. We can talk all day about how that extra cpu is priced competitively... but i don't need that cpu i need a video card... for example. So if I build a PC to my specs, and then say, what would a mac version cost, it would be a LOT MORE and it would still be missing things.
And the manufacturer of my whittling knife can take my knife away?
were you leasing it?
CyanogenMod is a community-maintained, enhanced version of Android, which you can replace the regular Android operating system on tablet and smartphones with, by flashing the ROM.
Given how things like cameras and stuff frequently don't work, im not sure i'd choose the adjective "enhanced"; i'd go with "alternate". I know lots of people who run the stock android because the so-called "enhanced one" is more trouble than they feel its worth; including me.