Intel CEO says Windows 8 is not ready | Hacker News Reader

Intel CEO says Windows 8 is not ready

news.cnet.com

15 pointsmolmalo18 comments

Well "slams" isn't exactly accurate however he is right in saying Windows 8 is still a pretty big work in progress for Microsoft however they had to release this year. It is a stable OS however it is a little schizophrenic to use with the awkward way that Metro (Modern UI) has been crowbarred into it.

In my opinion Windows 8 is more of a technology/strategy preview and not a "real" Windows release. I have been running the RTM since it hit MSDN and it is fine to use as a primary OS however it isn't all that nice to use as your primary OS. There are so many rough edges and inconsistency’s it is quite frustrating to use at times. However this is Microsoft trying to work out how Windows will work on tablet/touch based devices so it is to be expected.

Other than developers wanting to get used to some of the new development options available with WinRT and people who want Windows on a tablet and not iOS or Android I don't see any real reasons to upgrade from Windows 7. Especially as Windows 7 is a nicer experience for desktop/laptop users IMHO.

Every version of Windows has been much improved by the first service pack. I think the first point release will be where we start to see a better integration of the two halves of the UI.

Vista's service pack was Windows 7.

Typical cnet article "INTEL CEO SLAMS WINDOWS 8", and I quote directly from the article:

"... Otellini also said releasing Windows 8 before it's completely ready is the correct decision to help Microsoft and the PC makers compete against Apple during the key holiday season. He added that Microsoft can make changes after Windows 8 ships, the report said."

Of course Otellini is saying that. He's becoming desperate about PC sales, and he wants something to boost the sales as soon as possible, and because Windows 8 is probably the only chance Intel has to enter the tablet market, although even that isn't guaranteed. That doesn't mean Microsoft should make the whole mass-market beta-testers.

Yes, but regardless of how Otellini feels, he never said what they said he had said. So it's very deceptive.

I am actually pretty impressed with it on my 2006 computer. It's quicker then 7 and looks better. I am also surprised how well the mouse works on "metro" apps without a touch screen. The bottom line is that MS made changes to the traditional desktop, kernel and file system that make Windows 8 worth the upgrade.

Sure it's not just faster because it's a clean install?

I've had Windows 7 running at peak performance for years in boot-camp, on my early '08 Macbook Pro.

My understanding is that any general-purpose desktop OS is susceptible to slow-down over time unless you properly maintain it. In the case of OS X, it was slow from the beginning (at least, relatively...compared to Windows, on the same exact hardware).

My main computer is a 3½ year old Dell laptop (2.5Ghz C2D, 4GB RAM) and Windows 8 boots and runs a little smoother than Windows 7 does. Not enough for me to stick with 8 though, I am quite happy to keep it restricted to a virtual machine.

He hardly 'slammed it'. He actually agrees with Microsoft's decision to release it.

"Slams" is a word that appears in headlines more than it deserves, because it's short. It helps that it's dramatic, but mostly just because it's short. "Woes" is another extremely common one, and you see "Woos" a lot during election season.

Have to agree. Recently I used a Windows 8 Samsung tablet at a Microsoft Store. As much as I love Microsoft, I still feel the whole Metro paradigm is a slight mistake. They are closing the doors to the tried-and-true interface that Windows users have grown to love by trying to wall people into Metro. Frankly, "Desktop" is almost unusuable without a Start Menu button. You can't get into Computer Properties easily (usually right-click Computer on Start Menu). Control Panel is not obvious. It's virtually impossible to pin things on the dock unless you can find a way to open them. Businesses aren't going to upgrade unless someone uses a touch-screen or tablet (and even then it's doubtful).

They should be trying to make users WANT to use Metro--instead of forcing them into it. It's beautiful, great for tablets, and has the apps people crave. I'm not sure what they mean by "tested and ready", because I can't be the only person who has brought this up on the Internets and I'm sure they've discussed this internally. As a Windows-fan, they're losing me. And like in politics, if you've lost your base, you've lost.

If you right click on the bottom left corner (where the start menu button was/where the start page icon appears) you will get a context menu with most of the things you could want such as Computer Management, Command Prompt, etc.

Thanks, I forgot about this during my playtest. They couldn't have put an icon there or something?

Frankly the easiest way to get around is Win+R if you know the right shortcuts.

I'd agree. It doesn't feel finished yet. I think the OEMs will be all over it customising it which is going to ruin the experience.

With the defaults in place (boot to Metro Start Screen), my guess (hope) is that OEMs will customize it with Windows 8 Apps. Because these apps are sandboxed, it should be really easy to remove them without leaving traces behind (except for files in ~/AppData probably).

Their apps certainly have more impact on the Start Screen and the full screen 'immersive' experience should appeal to consumers (an OEM would hope).

This is spam. Here's the original source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-25/windows-8-bugs-plag...

Can we somehow vote cnet off the planet? And ZDNet, and the other ones my mind has blocked out from the trauma.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com