# Windows 8 (Consumer Preview version)



## CaptainCool (Mar 1, 2012)

so, windows 8...
i just set up a VM to test it and i gotta be honest, i dont get it. i mean, it works and i can use it but my desktop PC isnt a damn tablet PC, microsoft! :I
its kinda neat to have everything in one place with those tiles yet everything really ISNT in once place. you have to dig for many things and those of us who want to go a little deeper always have to use the "desktop app" to get things done.
and who the F thought it would be a good idea to hide the "reboot/shutdown" button in the "settings" tab in the new UI?! >=O and just getting there is weird, too... you go to the right side of the screen, then a panel decides to show up (or refuses to do so when it feels like it as it seems...), there you go to settings and then you click the shutdown button. WAT?

also, when you open the system management window in the "all apps" screen the bloody desktop opens as well! what the HELL is the point in having this retarded new metro UI that makes no darn sense AT ALL when almost everything that you open opens the desktop, too?! even the bloody wastebasket is on the desktop... you always have to go back and forth, its SO annoying!

the biggest joke has to be the new IE: http://static.stuff-review.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/windows-8-internet-explorer-1309.jpg
its just a fullscreen browser with a bar at the bottom. you right click to open the tabs bar at the top (say goodbye to the regular right-click context menu) and when you move the cursor to the right and left you can go back and forth in your history. it wont even let you save anything with a right click. all you can do is "copy" stuff or mark and copy text.
its kinda fast in my VM, so thats something...

so long story short, in my opinion this blows big time and i have NO idea what the guys at microsoft were smoking when they thought it is a good idea to make tablet PC OS for desktops.
i can see this flopping even harder than vista. i mean, it WORKS well but i just do see anyone wanting this! it sucks for desktops, businesses wont need this... its nice for tablets and PCs with a touchscreen i guess but how many users really do have a touchscreen on their desktop?
ive seen more and more laptops with touchscreens buy why use your greasy finger when you have a perfectly fine mouse that you grew comfortable to for years?
i just... really dont get it.


----------



## Zydala (Mar 1, 2012)

It's an experimental compromise in an industry where it looks like there's no going back to just desktops... not after the success of the tablet market.

I can see it being frustrating for desktop users yeah, but I think this is probably one of their smarter decisions in terms of carefully wading into a switch that seems inevitable. The smoother the transition for consumers the better and if they don't start putting out something that is meant to run on a tablet they'll be sinking instead of swimming.

Though it's questionable whether or not this is a 'smooth' transition. I'd like to try it myself if I could. It'd be interesting.

EDIT: forgot to mention though... I REALLY don't like the look of the IE browser... yick.


----------



## Fenrari (Mar 1, 2012)

A friend of mine had some serious Wifi related issues after he installed it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 1, 2012)

Zydala said:


> It's an experimental compromise in an industry where it looks like there's no going back to just desktops... not after the success of the tablet market.
> 
> I can see it being frustrating for desktop users yeah, but I think this is probably one of their smarter decisions in terms of carefully wading into a switch that seems inevitable. The smoother the transition for consumers the better and if they don't start putting out something that is meant to run on a tablet they'll be sinking instead of swimming.
> 
> ...



i still dont see a reason to have a touch based OS for a machine that is mainly being used with a mouse and a keyboard.
the tablet market might be successful (although personally i see that as a stretch because the only really successful tablet is the ipad, the rest of the industry is STILL struggeling to release a product or even an OS that can compete with apple!) and it might even become more and more common but it still hasnt managed to replace the desktop computer or even laptops. and i dont really see it doing that in the future.
i see tablets as multimedia companios. something that can entertain you and something that you can do a little work on. but once you need more you have your desktop. and for that you need a proper OS that uses the input devices well.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 1, 2012)

Fenrari said:


> A friend of mine had some serious Wifi related issues after he installed it.



cant really say anything about that since my PC is hooked up to my router with a cable


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Mar 1, 2012)

Windows 8 might be my excuse to go ahead and hop ship to Linux once they drop support for Win7. I'm getting sick of Microsoft trying to cater to the lowest common denominator and dropping functionality for the sake a "User-Friendly" environment.  I saw some a video or two about 3-4 months ago about Win8 and it did a little showcase of an early build and all I could think was "what the fuck is M$ thinking?" Why would they make an OS clearly geared toward a touch-based input system when most people that actually need a fully built Windows OS are still using a mouse and keyboard? I just don't understand it. :/


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 1, 2012)

Stratto the Hawk said:


> Windows 8 might be my excuse to go ahead and hop ship to Linux once they drop support for Win7. I'm getting sick of Microsoft trying to cater to the lowest common denominator and dropping functionality for the sake a "User-Friendly" environment.  I saw some a video or two about 3-4 months ago about Win8 and it did a little showcase of an early build and all I could think was "what the fuck is M$ thinking?" Why would they make an OS clearly geared toward a touch-based input system when most people that actually need a fully built Windows OS are still using a mouse and keyboard? I just don't understand it. :/



yup, thats exactly how i am thinking.
it makes sense as a tablet OS or for PCs and laptops with a touchscreen display. but in the latter two cases it would make more sense as an optional UI rather than setting it as the main UI fromt he start.


----------



## Zydala (Mar 1, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> i still dont see a reason to have a touch based OS for a machine that is mainly being used with a mouse and a keyboard.
> the tablet market might be successful (although personally i see that as a stretch because the only really successful tablet is the ipad, the rest of the industry is STILL struggeling to release a product or even an OS that can compete with apple!) and it might even become more and more common but it still hasnt managed to replace the desktop computer or even laptops. and i dont really see it doing that in the future.
> i see tablets as multimedia companios. something that can entertain you and something that you can do a little work on. but once you need more you have your desktop. and for that you need a proper OS that uses the input devices well.



That's a fair enough assessment. I see tablets (or tablet-ish devices) eventually replacing desktops in large parts of the market (maybe not so much for people who use software that takes heavy processors), but as far as it is, I can't argue that what Windows 8 probably should have been implemented as their entry into the tablet market exclusively, and something more aligned with desktop users maybe as separate but equivalent.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 1, 2012)

Zydala said:


> That's a fair enough assessment. I see tablets (or tablet-ish devices) eventually replacing desktops in large parts of the market (maybe not so much for people who use software that takes heavy processors), but as far as it is, I can't argue that what Windows 8 probably should have been implemented as their entry into the tablet market exclusively, and something more aligned with desktop users maybe as separate but equivalent.



i dont see them replacing desktops at all, i see them supporting desktop computing in the future. cloud services, remote desktop computing, being able to make drafts on the go and finishing them at your PC, gaming and multimedia stuff on the go. that is where i see tablets.


----------



## Onnes (Mar 1, 2012)

Zydala said:


> That's a fair enough assessment. I see tablets (or tablet-ish devices) eventually replacing desktops in large parts of the market (maybe not so much for people who use software that takes heavy processors), but as far as it is, I can't argue that what Windows 8 probably should have been implemented as their entry into the tablet market exclusively, and something more aligned with desktop users maybe as separate but equivalent.



Small monitors and the lack of keyboard absolutely kill tablets in productivity compared to the typical desktop. I see business interests effectively shunning Windows 8 unless the the new tablet interface can be reverted back to something more fitting of a desktop.


----------



## shteev (Mar 1, 2012)

I just stick with the regular desktop. As for functionality, the only thing that's wrong with Windows 8 is that some Metro UI apps don't work.
While I do like it, I'm stuck with it. I wrote over Windows 7 accidentally. Meh, it works, I'm fine with it.

I'm just happy I didn't have to re-download all my Steam games.

And no, the "touch-oriented" controls are implemented well on a keyboard/mouse setup. It's better than I thought it'd be.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 1, 2012)

We only ever got off XP because it was finally imposing real technical limitations on the expansion of computer technology.  The same will be true of 7 unless Microsoft manages to put something out that has a friendlier UI, is more lightweight, or expands user capabilities, without making reverse progress on any of the three.

That is to say, fat chance.


----------



## Cain (Mar 1, 2012)

...
If they actually start to drift away and make Windows OS themed for tablets I will actually strangle Bill Gates.

IF MY DESKTOP COSTS 2K, I WANT TO USE A DECENT, DESKTOP-FRIENDLY OS. NOT THIS SHIT.


----------



## Zydala (Mar 1, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> i dont see them replacing desktops at all, i see them supporting desktop computing in the future. cloud services, remote desktop computing, being able to make drafts on the go and finishing them at your PC, gaming and multimedia stuff on the go. that is where i see tablets.





Onnes said:


> Small monitors and the lack of keyboard absolutely kill tablets in productivity compared to the typical desktop. I see business interests effectively shunning Windows 8 unless the the new tablet interface can be reverted back to something more fitting of a desktop.



Tablets in their current state and with current technology, yes. Sorry I was talking like way far ahead in the future... like... hover-car future. I just meant that there will be a point where it'll all catch up with each other and we'll have something that is as portable and as easily manipulated as tablets are. But by that time they'll probably just be plugging stuff into our heads. :V

I think they had accessibility in mind when they were toying with windows 8 but obviously this all just sounds better on paper than we're finding it. I'll still have to just take the time to try it out I guess


----------



## Aden (Mar 1, 2012)

Man, they're really betting on the death of the mouse, huh? I like the look, but (as weird as this is to say about microsoft) they didn't wait long enough.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Mar 2, 2012)

There is no way they would be so stupid as to not have a desktop option. It will be like Category/Thumbnail view for the Control Panel.


----------



## Aetius (Mar 2, 2012)

Relevant.


----------



## Surgat (Mar 2, 2012)

Stratto the Hawk said:


> ...hop ship to Linux...



Nope. Not with a new computer, anyways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#Secure_boot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_restrictions#Windows_8


----------



## CerbrusNL (Mar 2, 2012)

Need I say more?

From what I read here, Microsoft's choosing user-friendliness above functionality. How's that supposed to be a good choice? That's pretty much one of the reasons Vista failed.
If they're counting on the mouse disappearing, I don't know what the hell they must be thinking. One of the reasons people but PC's instead of a mac, is the fact that "all" games work on a PC. I don't see anyone playing shooters on a touch screen.

Priorities, Microsoft. Priorities.


----------



## Truxi (Mar 2, 2012)

Never thought I'd say this, but I'd rather have _Vista_ than Windows 8 from what I've seen.


----------



## Elim Garak (Mar 2, 2012)

Jagged Edge said:


> ...
> If they actually start to drift away and make Windows OS themed for tablets I will actually strangle Bill Gates.
> 
> IF MY DESKTOP COSTS 2K, I WANT TO USE A DECENT, DESKTOP-FRIENDLY OS. NOT THIS SHIT.


Yes because Steve Balmer totally isn't the CEO of MS.

Also, You can easily switch to desktop UI, not that hard. There's going to be a regular desktop version of IE as well(confirmed by MS).

People are so afraid of change. It's just like the people hating on Windows 7 while they are using XP or people being butthurt about the new Firefox layout or Office 2000 compared to 2010.

Also those switching to linux, say goodbye to your games as Wine lacks decent support for a lot of shit.

I bet most people here would switch over to ubuntu with the crappy unity interface and the bloatware.
If you switch over, at least go to something decent like Arch(bang).

Also fuck Gnome.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Mar 2, 2012)

Caroline Dax said:


> Yes because Steve Balmer totally isn't the CEO of MS.
> 
> Also, You can easily switch to desktop UI, not that hard. There's going to be a regular desktop version of IE as well(confirmed by MS).
> 
> ...



^This. Also, FTFY. Nothin' wrong with Gnome 2.3

I'm on the Consumer Preview right now and you know what?

*It's not that different than Windows 7.* In the past two days, I've maybe gone to Start about 5 times, and 3 of those times were this morning to play with Metro's Remote Desktop app. 90% of my time has been spent on the legacy UI desktop (Which is large and prominent on the Start screen.)

It should also be noted that you can move icons around on Start and you can pick and choose what is displayed. If you want something that's not on the Start page? Press your Start key and start typing. It's like Gnome Do almost. Multi selection also works, which makes tiding up the Start page quicker. The only gripe I have here is that every single program that gets installed winds up there. (Install the Windows SDK? Better be prepared for a column full of icons). I'm sure they'll address this as 8 matures, with the "Make start menu entry" being replaced by "Make Start page icon."

So to all of you who are tarding out over Metro, I advise you actually give it an honest chance and make note of how much time you spend on the desktop. And I also encourage you to realize this is a fucking BETA. It is not the final code. I actually find Start useful for some things, and I like how beautiful some of the pre release Metro apps are. I also cant' wait to get my mitts on Office 15. I want to see how they incorporate it with 8.

Have any of you even glanced at the Store app? Have you explored the apps currently available? It's a good start and I like where it's going. (Also, where was the hate when Lion put in Mission Control and Launchpad?)

Is Metro slightly inconvenient for those with a desktop? Yes, for the first day or two. Then you start leveraging the left and right hidden columns and all is well. You get into the groove of things and it's not so bad anymore. 

How anyone could prefer Unity over Metro is fucking beyond me. 



Surgat said:


> Nope. Not with a new computer, anyways.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#Secure_boot
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_restrictions#Windows_8



You  act like Linux won't eventually find a way to sign code. Also, I'm  fairly sure that most companies will have a "Disable Secure Boot" option  in the EFI settings, as the spec deliberately calls for such an option.  You lose secureboot, but most linux users won't give two shits about  that to begin with.

From: Windows 8 Hardware Certification Requirements


			
				windows8-hardware-cert-requirements-system.pdf said:
			
		

> _MANDATORY: Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is  required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware  setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot  via firmware setup without possession of PKpriv._


For fairness, the specs also say that ARM must not be allowed to disable secureboot. That sucks, but the option IS there for non-ARM archs.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Mar 2, 2012)

There are a lot of opinions from people in this thread, but if I read correctly, only two, maybe three users, have actually USED the consumer preview of the operating system...


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (Mar 2, 2012)

Surgat said:


> Nope. Not with a new computer, anyways.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_8#Secure_boot
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_restrictions#Windows_8



Rest assured, I'd be building my own computer once I get around to actually buying one, especially by the time that Windows 8 comes out. And if I'm reading that correctly, they'll be adding a way to turn the feature off on x86/64 based chips/systems. At any rate, just more bullshit from Microsoft that really doesn't make any sense. >_>



Caroline Dax said:


> People are so afraid of change. It's just like the people hating on  Windows 7 while they are using XP or people being butthurt about the new  Firefox layout or Office 2000 compared to 2010.


It's not about change, it's about function versus form. No comment on WIN7 vs XP, but Firefox at least doesn't drop functionality with each new update, and indeed improves in a lot of ways as to not hinder the user's experience. And don't even talk about Office. Office is the worst offender of cutting function for the sake of making a product "user friendly." You don't improve a product by completely scrapping the old UI, putting in one that looks prettier, and then removing tools that people were already familiar with out hiding them away in some shitty maze of menus. That's the difference between Office 2003 and Office 2007, and the only reason I made that upgrade was so that I could actually open the new .docx file format for school related purposes.



> Also those switching to linux, say goodbye to your games as Wine lacks decent support for a lot of shit.


The only reason I'm not using Linux now is because I'm a gamer, and I will work for free with Wine to improve support if it means not having to use some new dumbed down version of the Windows OS. I'm even willing to make the sacrifice of just not being a PC gamer any more if that's what it'll come to.



> If you switch over, at least go to something decent like Arch(bang).


I tried Ubuntu and wasn't a fan, but then again, I completely borked my install and had a ton  of issues that I never got around to fixing even beforehand. Needless to say, I won't be using it if and when I do finally make the switch.



> Also, You can easily switch to desktop UI, not that hard. There's going  to be a regular desktop version of IE as well(confirmed by MS).


This shouldn't be an option that you have, this should be the motherfucking default. The system should also just have a FF installer on the desktop so that the user can go ahead and run it without ever having to touch IE.


----------



## Lobar (Mar 2, 2012)

Admittedly, I would like a full-featured Windows switchable to a mobile-style UI on a device like the Asus Transformer.  The inability to do Windows desktop stuff on a tablet is one of the last reasons I haven't given in to them yet.


----------



## Ikrit (Mar 2, 2012)

CerbrusNL said:


> I don't see anyone playing shooters on a touch screen.


i had a friend who did that 

*poke* head shot *poke* head shot *poke* head shot

also, if an older windows losses support, what exactly happens?
is it some how no longer useable?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Mar 2, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> also, if an older windows losses support, what exactly happens?
> is it some how no longer useable?



It stops getting software and security updates from Microsoft, and various OEMs will stop making drivers for it, thusly newer hardware will not be supported by an older OS.


----------



## dietrc70 (Mar 3, 2012)

I installed the developer preview when it came out and my response was "wut?"  I nuked it not long after when I needed the hard drive space.

I just installed the consumer preview today and decided I kind of like it.  The apps work better, and I think they tweaked the interface somewhat.

I think MS is doing the right thing by moving to the live tiles.  My desktop is covered with icons and things get lost.  It's mostly wasted space.  The live tiles can actually provide info--as well as being easy to find.  I was playing with Visual Studio 2012 and thinking that I could program my own tiles to show the most recent files for various applications, or scrolling lists of important files.  That would be a huge improvement over the old desktop.

If you have two monitors, you can have the traditional desktop open on one while switching between full screen applications in the other.

It is a strange move by Microsoft, but I don't think it's a bad one.  The live tiles have a lot of potential that hasn't been realized yet.  Right now, though, it does look like you're running Windows Phone 7 on your desktop...


----------



## Runefox (Mar 3, 2012)

My major problem with the tiles concept is that it's not designed for use with a mouse any more than Windows Phone 7 is, and it's obvious that the reasoning behind this (and the shift to ARM architecture support) is to kickstart a series of Windows-based tablets with a single codebase. Which makes perfect sense, but without a touchscreen, desktop users really have no reason to be using the tile interface, where the mouse has to travel far greater distances to perform tasks, and this is especially true of the new Internet Explorer interface.

It's not a _bad_ move, no. Misguided might be the right term. They're trending in the right direction, but they're throwing the baby out with the wash by pushing this interface across all platforms. Really, it should be secondary to the desktop (like Media Center), not the other way around.


----------



## Aden (Mar 3, 2012)

Runefox said:


> to kickstart a series of Windows-based tablets with a single codebase





> Minimum hardware requirements for Windows Consumer Preview:
> 
> HDD free space: 16 GB (32-bit), 20 GB (64-bit)



Seems wasteful


----------



## Runefox (Mar 3, 2012)

Aden said:


> Seems wasteful


 It's not all that big considering the number of hardware drivers and other miscellaneous cruft would be pared back to a minimum on a tablet/portable. For example, out of the 22GB my Win7 directory takes up, 10.3GB is used by WinSXS alone (Windows Side-By-Side, in other words, old/alternative versions of DLL's for compatibility). Then there's 500MB worth of fonts, 3.01GB worth of Windows Installer files, 1.51GB worth of cached Windows updates, and 1.21GB worth of WoW64 (Windows on Windows - 32-bit compatibility).

Obviously, a lot of this would be useless on an ARM processor or in a mobile environment. So, taking all that out, Windows 7 actually weighs in at ~5-6GB, and that's including all the extraneous hardware drivers and other stuff that I never bothered to factor in (which is about another gig or so). I'm pretty sure further reductions are possible beyond that, not to mention compression. Really, the footprint would be similar to iOS or Android if it was done right.


----------



## shteev (Mar 3, 2012)

Shit, I'm still on the Developer preview.

Probably should update.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Mar 3, 2012)

My only gripe about Metro UI is that the small icons on Metro UI's menu are not small enough, but other than that I like it better. I always wanted a full screen menu for Windows.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Mar 3, 2012)

Runefox said:


> It's not all that big considering the number of hardware drivers and other miscellaneous cruft would be pared back to a minimum on a tablet/portable. For example, out of the 22GB my Win7 directory takes up, 10.3GB is used by WinSXS alone (Windows Side-By-Side, in other words, old/alternative versions of DLL's for compatibility). Then there's 500MB worth of fonts, 3.01GB worth of Windows Installer files, 1.51GB worth of cached Windows updates, and 1.21GB worth of WoW64 (Windows on Windows - 32-bit compatibility).
> 
> Obviously, a lot of this would be useless on an ARM processor or in a mobile environment. So, taking all that out, Windows 7 actually weighs in at ~5-6GB, and that's including all the extraneous hardware drivers and other stuff that I never bothered to factor in (which is about another gig or so). I'm pretty sure further reductions are possible beyond that, not to mention compression. Really, the footprint would be similar to iOS or Android if it was done right.


I hope to God. Windows 7 Ultimate is like 3.5 GB, and I'm running my programs/OS on a 120 GB SSD.


----------



## shteev (Mar 3, 2012)

Commiecomrade said:


> I hope to God. Windows 7 Ultimate is like 3.5 GB, and I'm running my programs/OS on a 120 GB SSD.



Unless you're on an ARM system which requires less system files, I think Windows will still weigh in around 10 gigs.

Unfortunately for me, after going from 7 to 8 on my laptop, I gained around 20 gigs of extra shit. I should probably clean up my system.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Mar 3, 2012)

It better not have a separate boot partition like 7 that makes encryption a pain in the ass


----------

