EggXpert

Microsoft has unveiled build 7989, also known as "Windows 8" which is targeted for a late 2011-early 2012 release date. The aesthetically pleasing OS will be able to run two different kinds of applications. One being "mobile-style" apps based off of HTML5 and JavaScript, and the other being traditional desktop applications.

Although it is more geared towards touch screen devices, you will still be able to use a standard mouse and keyboard with it so anyone can use it.

How do you feel about this operating system, do you think Microsoft is going in the right direction the Win 7 mobile looking platform 

For more info about the OS, click here.

 -Nick

im usually all for new things, but i dont think i like the look of it so far, kinda like new msn messenger i tryed that out and it was horrible.

 I don't mind the looks of it; however I really hope they aren't putting all of their efforts into the visual aspect of this release and neglecting functionality...

-Nick 

Nick, thanks for sharing. The whole integration with the social networking isn't my thing, but I guess they have to go with the times.

 

I think it's a big mistake to be making an OS that is primarily built for Touch Screen computers. What are business owners supposed to do? Looks like a great OS for a tablet, but not a computer..

 

I completely agree that the touchscreen route is a huge mistake on microsfts part. First off, there aren't enough touch screen devices that aren't cell phones. Second, Android OS has a very dominant grip in the touchscreen market, and with the android platform being developer friendly, its going to make very stiff compitition. Also that would involve comprimising the standard desktop users functionality. Lastly, windows phone 7 was a mistake. Best case scenario MS is going to have a very controversal OS, with touchscreen aspect missing features, or not as good as the competition, and the majority of users being traditional desktop users feeling abandoned or ignored while struggling to adapt. Kinda like Ubuntu/Unity with netbook vs all other users. Unity is very netbook friendly and utilizes limited screen space well, but it hinders productivity of users who don't have that concern. The differece is MS isn't doing anything too original, nor are they trying to avoid a trainwreck like GNOME 3... its not looking good for Windows 8. Personally I'm going to stick with win7, until MS forces gamers to upgrade with DX12 or 13.

is this the..ermm..desktop? There must be a mode or something that displays a more traditional menu...this is great for tablets but for mouse and keyboard I would rather have something a bit more powerful.

I think it could go both ways considering Androids popularity in the touch screen world. Windows is a very dominant OS consider its popularity over Linux for example. Linux is a great OS and free even, although Linux is not talked about or used nearly as much as Windows.

That's only because Linux doesn't advertise. No one knows about Linux. And everyone I've introduced to Linux never went back to Windows. I'd say Android is a clear example of this. Android is Google's Linux project, and Google advertises, and look at it's popularity of Windows Phone 7. Now Google "Chromebooks" (another linux based project) are coming out, and I'd expect those to dominate the netbook market.

And even a more clear example (and I hate this example) is Apple, and it's increasing popularity with Mac OS X. To be blunt, Windows is flawed, and everyone knows it. The only reason why anyone uses Windows is they think it's the only option. I barely think Windows is worth the bandwidth to pirate it... >~<

On top of that, Linux is highly modular and customizable. There is a flavor of Linux to fit everyone's needs, most are free and open-sourced. Windows can't compete. From the minimalist Slitaz Linux, to the modular Arch Linux, to the fully featured Linux Mint, there is a flavor for everyone.

jerm1027:

That's only because Linux doesn't advertise. No one knows about Linux. And everyone I've introduced to Linux never went back to Windows. I'd say Android is a clear example of this. Android is Google's Linux project, and Google advertises, and look at it's popularity of Windows Phone 7. Now Google "Chromebooks" (another linux based project) are coming out, and I'd expect those to dominate the netbook market.

And even a more clear example (and I hate this example) is Apple, and it's increasing popularity with Mac OS X. To be blunt, Windows is flawed, and everyone knows it. The only reason why anyone uses Windows is they think it's the only option. I barely think Windows is worth the bandwidth to pirate it... >~<

Uhm, if you're going to be playing an title game besides Minecraft, you need Windows, therefore being the only option. I can't just pop on a new Direct-X title on Mint.

Scad25:

I think it's a big mistake to be making an OS that is primarily built for Touch Screen computers. What are business owners supposed to do? Looks like a great OS for a tablet, but not a computer..

 

One of the things Windows has been promising on and off is actual touchscreen support. Vista times in 2005. That was 6 years ago, and it definitely is due time. But, you would be incorrect to assume that this is how the GUI is entirely laid out.

Have you heard of WINE? It allows you to do just that. Granted it's not perfect, but it works. Mostly. Also, with increasing support for OpenGL, Linux can very well turn into a gaming platform. And there have been a few Windows titled ported to on Linux natively.

jerm1027-

 Very well said! I couldn't agree more.

-Nick

TheN33k-

 There is a desktop mode that looks pretty similar to Windows 7 however they are integrating the new touchscreen/visual part into it. I was pretty concerned about that as well.

-Nick

 

Since the topic does partly relate to Wine, I have a little detail most do not know that is useful.

I use Wine On Windows. Yes. It does exist. And some older DirectX problems can not be fixed on modern systems running Windows, but they can be entirely negated by using Wine.

Windows 8 strikes me like Windows ME did. the best version of Windows to exist when ME came out was Windows 98 SE. But ME was so very bad that it broke the perception of Windows being Stable that Windows 98 SE had finally managed to secure.

jerm1027:

Have you heard of WINE? It allows you to do just that. Granted it's not perfect, but it works. Mostly. Also, with increasing support for OpenGL, Linux can very well turn into a gaming platform. And there have been a few Windows titled ported to on Linux natively.

Yea, World of Goo is a great game that was ported to Linux and it doesn't "feel" like a port.. Runs very smoothly on my Dell mini 10 that has one of those low end Intel graphics chips, which says a lot..

Though the more I use Linux, the less I play games..  In a way that's a good thing...  You can learn more about Operating Systems when running Linux for just 1 year, than you do running Windows for 5 years... Assuming you put the time in to learn..

Hmm.... it's .....'okay'.

I don't mind the touch screen so long as I can still use the mouse. 

Social networking site integration is not my thing either but I see how that is important for the teenagers that will be the next generation of OS buyers.

Just because the OS includes those things doesn' mean I need to use them, right?

 Anyway, not too motivated to upgrade.  I am very happy with 7 the same way people were happy with XP.  I might wait for 9, lol.

products:

 Anyway, not too motivated to upgrade.  I am very happy with 7 the same way people were happy with XP.  I might wait for 9, lol.

haha.. same...  Although the family still has some PCs running Windows XP and Windows XP 64-bit that I might upgrade for them if they release a cheap Windows 8 family upgrade pack like they did for 7..

The "killer feature" of Windows 7 was that "it's not Vista".. 

  Doesn't sound to me like Windows 8 has any "killer features" as "it's not Windows 7" alone won't make people buy it..

 

 

Sidicas:

The "killer feature" of Windows 7 was that "it's not Vista".. 

  Doesn't sound to me like Windows 8 has any "killer features" as "it's not Windows 7" alone won't make people buy it..

THAT's IT!  Exactly The biggest incentive to upgrade to 7 was to get rid of Vista.   My choice was between going back to XP or installing Windows 7. I took the 7 for having more modern features like Media Center can tune into QAM channels.

unless they add some most have features i think it's silly. We don't need a new OS every couple years IMHO. I think XP was starting to show it's age and was due to be replaced. I don't see why users shouldn't be able to get 10 years out of 7 like they did with XP.

Kardon:

unless they add some most have features i think it's silly. We don't need a new OS every couple years IMHO. I think XP was starting to show it's age and was due to be replaced. I don't see why users shouldn't be able to get 10 years out of 7 like they did with XP.

At least with Windows you don't lose features from the old version to the new version.. Wish I could say the same about the rewrite from KDE 3 to KDE 4.... It's an open source app, but because they completely tore out the old crufty rusty toolkit that everything was built on top of and replaced it with fresh and pretty plasma awesomeness, everything needed to be rewritten and some things got left out...  

Naturally the "power features" that I use the most, got left out of KDE 4...

I just tried KDE 4.6 last week and was not impressed..  Nothing really popped out as a "killer feature" for that either, but Marble is a pretty cool alternative to Google Earth, especially since Marble can be used offline and can be set to download a cache for offline use..

I still think Ubuntu 11.04 with Unity is full of awesome though, even if nobody else likes it..  .. It's got a learning curve like a corkscrew but once you get to know it, it's quite nice and very powerful despite it's simple appearance.. Just like KDE 3 was.. /sigh..

 A lot of the KDE 4 apps are amazing.. Kdenlive.. Marble... Kaffine... Amarok... etc. etc... But the desktop itself is just bleh to me.. They added a ton of eye candy that can put Windows 7 to shame... But somebody forgot to code the advanced desktop features for power users.

Poor Microsoft.  People complain and go to Apple if they make a poo like Vista, and then if they make a good one (like 7) we don't upgrade.

Considering the prices of their OSes, us holding onto a good OS for 10 good years is inevitable.  We might upgrade without thinking much if they'd sell their OSes for 30 bucks.    100 -200 bucks every 3 years and then some upgrades on softwares to make them compatible with OS?  That's a lot of money.

Sidicas:

Kardon:

unless they add some most have features i think it's silly. We don't need a new OS every couple years IMHO. I think XP was starting to show it's age and was due to be replaced. I don't see why users shouldn't be able to get 10 years out of 7 like they did with XP.

At least with Windows you don't lose features from the old version to the new version..

They nerfed the search function in Windows 7 it's really a ball buster for me at work. Makes backups a pita. Not as severe as your issue but very frustrating. Especially since search was fine in vista and it's pretty much the same darn OS.

Kardon:

They nerfed the search function in Windows 7 it's really a ball buster for me at work. Makes backups a pita. Not as severe as your issue but very frustrating. Especially since search was fine in vista and it's pretty much the same darn OS.

Hmmm.. You mean application search or file search?

I've got Vista and I think the app search is fine but the file search is terrible... Ctrl + F and then I have to click the down arrow and then the checkbox to search non-indexed areas..  Then it's not really clear whether it's searching or whether I have to hit enter.. meh.. There's also multiple text boxes to type things in and it's not clear if you can do regular expression wildcards and substitutions or not (I still have no idea! * seems to work without even putting it in but _ and $ regular expressions don't and I still don't know how to "search for all filenames that start with a given text string and have numbers in it" or other kinds of advanced searches.)

  In Windows XP, the search is slow, but it's easier to get to advanced options as they all come up as checkboxes without having to hit a down arrow... Though I don't think it does pattern matched regular expression searching at all, or if it does, it's not the same way KDE does it..

I'm not too fond of the way Microsoft does their search..  It just doesn't seem very intelligent to do it that way.. 

 If I open up a folder and hit Ctrl + F on a folder location then the OS should automatically know whether the folder and subfolders is indexed and if not, automatically do the "search non-indexed locations" checkbox..  To the user, it should not matter whether or not the locations are indexed and the OS should be searching all subfolders and files in the folder the user opened whether indexed or not...  Again, that's Microsoft for you making the user do things the OS should be doing..

At least KDE does search right, in both KDE 3 and KDE 4... No complaints..   Pop open search and there's all your advanced search options and you can even type in regular expressions to match based on certain patterns (all numbers / all letters / followed by text / doesn't start with given text / doesn't end with given text / doesn't start or end with given text but contains given text, etc, etc..)...  Ubuntu 11.04 the search makes the netbook frustratingly choppy, but it gets the job done quickly, just need patience and to resist the urge to multi-task too much on a netbook..

Also, for some reason the Vista and Ubuntu search likes to automatically put * wildcards at the beginning or end of everything that you type..  So if you find cat, it will find it at the beginning, middle, end or anywhere in the filename..  Annoys the heck out of me..  If I wanted a wildcard, I'd put the darn thing in! Trying to search for filenames that begin with the word "cat" and Vista search keeps returning filenames like "allocate" and whatever other silly things..

Trying to find files that have very short filenames is annoying on Windows..  Try to find a file called exactly "xyz" with unknown or missing extension and Vista turns around and returns 50,000 search results of files that have "xyz" in the name...  Then it's like I've got to do a search of a search or something..  I hate filesearches that assume wildcards, because then I have to think how to get around the stupid search, which is harder than just remembering to put in your wildcards when you need them..