Windows 8 Arrives
microsoft.com
microsoft.com
Short version - outside of Metro it's basically Win7SP3 and it works great. Metro is every bit the usability disaster that people have claimed when not running on a touch screen.
The good news is that you really don't have to interface much with Metro at all. It replaces the start menu, but it does so in a manner that works with how I'm used to dealing with the start menu already. That is, I already just hit the Win key and then start typing until the thing I want pops up, and that behavior has carried over.
So, yeah Metro is awful for all the reasons everybody has already laid out. Despite that, Win 8 has been a solid performer and I won't be loading Win7 back on this system.
My primary home system will continue to run Win7 until I am comfortable that my production applications will all run successfully (and by that, I mean "games").
I've been using it on a MacBook Pro and with the multi-touch trackpad metro actually works reasonably well. Obviously it would be better with a touchscreen but I am able to tap to click, use two fingers to scroll left/right/up/down and moving the mouse the the screen corners activates charms/open apps/last opened app. Maybe PC mouse makers (including MS) will come up with similar mice to make the experience better for non-touchscreen devices.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/24/3265121/microsoft-wedge-to...
Beyond that, we were developing interception technologies to hook inside windows 8 metro applications successfully.
It is good to see a total usability disaster in which Linux took the lead and Windows followed. It is usually the other way around. This really bodes well for Linux on the desktop.
However it seems the android app is still at version 4.0, so I guess we have to wait for an update.
As an aside, I've actually been meaning to learn about writing drivers for a while, especially in preparation for a uni course. So with windows 8 here and all of it's cool touch gestures, it would be even cooler. So I'm not sure if you would know this, but can you point me towards any resources for essentially simulating touches? I was thinking of building a battle Etch-a-sketch app for a school project, that would actually have two players use two etch-a-sketch systems in drawing stuff. If it was only one user, I could use the mouse pointer, but being two, I probably need touches. I hope I made myself clear enough. If it's better for you, just email me at alexsb92 [at] gmail [dot] com. Thanks.
If you want to simulate touches programatically then take a look at this api: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh80...
Edit: I don't think you'll need to write a driver either way.
They still have that, right? It's been a while since I used Windows.
For example, mine has Java, Steam, Thinkpad Tools, Nvidia nView, Digsby, etc. Nothing Metro in there.
I like Metro (but this is coming from a mec geek - so there you go). BUT I agree it will take time to get used to. But I suspect a hack will be out shortly allowing you to by pass Metro completely. I can't imagine the corporate world being happy about Metro.
Is there a way to switch to 'Classic Desktop'?
For instance, going to the traditional desktop is as easy as clicking the "Desktop" tile. And opening a new tab in the metro-IE was a bit confusing but after figuring out that double finger pressing the touchpad brings up the tab list and url bar it has become easier.
I also like the new native mail client and calendar apps.
For the record, I am running Windows 8 on a 2011 macbook air via bootcamp and it runs perfect. Guild Wars 2 also gets about 10 fps more than it does on the mac client for what its worth and makes it actually playable on an Air :)
Following this tangent a bit more, I feel like if the drivers were updated enough to support 3 finger left and right gestures to wipe between the different screens I wouldn't revisit OSX for a while.
Windows 8 is a fun operating system.
The Surface, not so much (7.0): http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3540550/microsoft-surface...
It's only Windows RT that people seem to be complaining about.
The most interesting thing will be in cheap tablets area.
I'm surprised more people haven't picked up on this rather bold move.
The elephant in the room for me is the horizontal scrolling. I'm sitting there spinning the mouse wheel vertically, and what's on the screen is moving horizontally. That's a total disconnect.
Why this emphasis on horizontal scrolling? I don't see how the horizontally scrolling items are in any way easier to use than a vertically scrolling set of items. Seems like different, for difference's sake.
Of course, if you're not using touch, then yes, I agree it feels a bit weird at first. It doesn't take that long to get used to though.
That's... reasonable.
I might consider buying a copy of Windows 8 Pro at that price and then waiting until it hits SP1 to install it.
I might even spin up a VM to try it out.
I like that the $39 upgrade applies to anyone with Windows XP, Windows Vista or Windows 7. I think they're realizing that a lot of people don't upgrade OS because they don't want to upgrade their hardware.
(like my old Win XP laptop that I use as a VNC terminal to other machines).
The only reason why I wouldn't want to jump in with two feet is that I have a general dislike for the Xbox dashboard and I suspect that Metro would be very similar to it.
[1] You can use this tool to check that you have a genuine version of Windows http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=52012
[2] Windows OEM licenses are transferable if it included the hardware
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/licensing/sblicensing/pages/...
[3] Windows retail licenses are transferable
http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualPrope...
Here's a direct link to a PDF for Windows 7 Home Basic in English
http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows%207...
[4] Windows Anytime Upgrades are pretty much considered to be OEM
17. TRANSFER TO ANOTHER COMPUTER. (retail)
a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may transfer the software and install it on another computer for your use. That computer becomes the licensed computer. You may not do so to share this license between computers.
b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. You may transfer the software and install it on another computer, but only if the license terms of the software you upgraded from allows you to do so. That computer becomes the licensed computer. You may not do so to share this license between computers.
18. TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY. (retail)
a. Software Other Than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may make a one time transfer of the software and this agreement, by transferring the original media, the certificate of authenticity, the product key and the proof of purchase directly to a third party. The first user must remove the software before transferring it separately from the computer. The first user may not retain any copies of the software.
b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. You may transfer the software directly to a third party only with the licensed computer. You may not keep any copies of the software or any earlier edition.
c. Other Requirements. Before any permitted transfer, the other Offer valid from October 26, 2012 until January 31, 2013
and is limited to five upgrade licenses per customer.
To install Windows 8 Pro, customers must be running
Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista, or Windows 7.[1] http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/pd/Windows...
Really, just visit a friend/relative and find a dusty old PC that has a license sticker on it and ask if you can have it.
The first thing that broke was it wanted the oem cab file. Fixed that.
Then it would complain "this product key is intended for the original system."
Since I was running in a VM I changed it piece by piece until it accepted the product code, first changed the type of CPU it was reporting, then the bios identifier string, and finally the ethernet MAC address. It finally acceepted the product code after all of that (not sure which parts were optional but only needed it for like a week) Considered those licenses pretty much worthless from that point on.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=1157...
Note: You may be required to activate the OS as the product key has been deactivated. This is the expected behavior. The VHDs will not pass genuine validation. Immediately after you start the Windows 7 or Windows Vista images they will request to be activated. You can cancel the request and it will login to the desktop. You can activate up to two “rearms” (type slmgr –rearm at the command prompt) which will extend the trial for another 30 days each time OR simply shutdown the VPC image and discard the changes you’ve made from undo disks to reset the image back to its initial state. By doing either of these methods, you can technically have a base image which never expires although you will never be able to permanently save any changes on these images for longer than 90 days.
The stupid things restart every 30 minutes. I don't know what else I can say to underline what an annoying waste of time they are.
(Or I could be showing my [lack of] age and MSDN didn't have easy download access in the XP era)
The discussion was about whether or not MS has decided to reduce their retail OS price from the ~$100 it is at right now. AFAICT, they have not.
This is still desirable compared to torrenting because a pirated copy will end up failing the Genuine check, will no longer get updates, and will happily be a part of some botnet some day.
That said my current machine is Win7 enterprise that I somehow, if only through brute force rather than actual know-how, managed to convince that its install had been validated.
I know plenty of people who would hate to torrent of, say, Photoshop, but also don't think it's worth $550 to them. Having a bought license that's legally of questionable origin is a compromise many non-business users would be more than willing to entertain.
What would be peoples motivation to buy it for existing computer?
* "It's sorta legal, it's at least some kind of a licence, right?" -- they're misinformed / tricked /fools
* "I want to pay something, but retail costs too much" -- if you pay without getting anything useful in return, you're donating. Why not donate to charity?
* "I want to get Windows Updates" -- cracked copies used to get updates, and they're often bundled with updates already applied
My point is, I don't understand buying half-valid licence. Licence is either valid or you have no licence.
Because your sense of fair play says you've got something from MS so they, and not some random charity, deserve some of your money? Do you follow the same logic and donate to charity instead of tipping at restaurants?
The idea of buying a chef's knife from Victorinox for one price if it's to be used to chop vegetables and another if it's to be used to trim fat from steaks is absurd. You buy the knife at the lowest price it's offered and use it however you like.
Software licensing does include the ability to charge different prices for different usage scenarios, but violating those conditions doesn't strike most people as unethical while obtaining the software without paying seems similar to theft.
Purchased goods are purchased goods, and the idea that something is licensed with restrictions seems ridiculous to most people unless it's something upfront like a subscription that you are paying monthly fees to access.
This practice is actually fairly common. For example, almost all the technical people I know have bought OEM licenses rather than retail licenses for previous versions of Windows when they're building new systems. According to Microsoft, an OEM license is only valid if you sell the new system to someone else, not use it yourself[1].
[1]http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/licensing/sblicensing/pages/...
(It appears "retail" copies have been given the axe entirely, which isn't particularly surprising.)
[0] http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416...
[1] http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832416...
[0] (footnote) http://blogs.windows.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2...
I suspect the real reason for this train wreck of an EULA is that "no retail copies" is yet another stick to force volume license users to purchase software assurance, as it does mean that the only current-version Windows base license available to companies with more than five seats is the restricted, nontransferable OEM EULA. Or, oddly enough in the case of most volume license agreements, Mac OS X.
Perhaps the price might be a hint that it's worth less than previous versions..
(Note: Example with exaggerated contrast is used here for illustration purposes only, not for comparing size of change.)
And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=windows+8+start+menu+replacemen...
(First result for me was "Stardock’s Start 8 Windows Start Menu replacement to cost $4.99")
They don't want to release service packs anymore and instead release constant updates including feature/performance upgrades. http://www.instantfundas.com/2012/10/windows-service-packs-n...
I imagine that Microsoft will do for Windows what they do for other products like IE: Offer periodic "rollup" updates that apply several updates at once.
When a new service pack is released, Microsoft will provide either 12 or 24 months of support for the previous service pack, varying according to the product family (for example, Windows, Office, Servers, or Developer tools). When support for a service pack ends, Microsoft will no longer provide new security updates, DST updates, hotfixes or other updates for that service pack.[1]
The price is much lower than for previous versions of Windows, this makes me suspect that we should start expecting new releases of Windows much more frequently, similar to how Apple does it.
With the radical changes going on in Windows 8 it wouldn't surprise me to see a tweaked and improved Windows 9 in less than 2 years.
Having the shorter releases seems to work very well, at least it has in the OS X world. The ability to release new features and get them in the hands of users faster than once every 3 or 5 years is a big improvement.
It's also nice to see them drop the price. At the old $99 or $129 level, an OS upgrade really needs to justify it's existence. Many people would just hold out and buy a new computer (especially if you only paid $400 or $500 for it). At $40 it's much easier to get people to update without waiting for a hardware refresh.
I absolutely don't think so at all. I think the lower price is because they want people using the metro app store, because they want an app ecosystem to make them money the way Google / Amazon / Apple do right now. They dind't backport Metro so Metro apps are Windows 8 only, so it is in their best interests to get as many people on the platform as fast as possible to maximize app development and maximize profits from app sales.
The computer booted up to a home screen with icons for all of your programs, and you had to click exit to desktop to get into windows.
At work the IT dept will hopefully skip this version all together, or take a few years before "approving" it.
The interface is freaking unusable.
It is like Microsoft decided to exit the desktop market with a bang.
"We are failing, and we are taking Windows with us".
Clarification:
I assumed el_cuadrado was refering to metro being "unusable".
Is that true?
Disclosure: MSFT Employee
Windows Vista - failure
Windows 7 - success
Windows 8 - potential failure
Just following a pattern.
Windows 3.1 - Success
Windows 95 - Success
Windows 98 - Success (moderate, whatever)
Windows NT 4 - Success
Windows Me - Failure
Windows 2000 - Success
Here's how I remember it:
3.1 was the first windows GUI for mass consumption, and was successful, and pretty decent for it's time.
95 was also succesful, but I remember it being very, terribly unstable. Moreso than 3.1.. i put it in the bad column based on that.
98 improved on this and added a lot. Good.
ME was utter dogshit.
Kernels changed from ME to XP, so I make the link there. Microsoft did provide a direct upgrade path from ME to XP.
XP was awesome
Vista was horrid.
7 was awesome
Now 8. If they continue the pattern, 8 will suck.
It seems like there's a micro pattern like "new UI paradigm" >> "polish and improve new UI". 98 improved on 95, 7 improved on vista, XP improved on 2K.
For a year or two there I was running workstations with both, and didn't see much difference.
I think Vista took the heat for imposing security where none existed.
Vista had teething problems early on which burnt a lot of people. Unfortunately, that's what seems to be stuck in everyone's minds.
It's funny that I keep hearing people say this, yet hundreds of thousands of people are using it just fine before it's even released. A large number of them even using it as their daily OS. This indicates to me that it is usable. Perhaps by "unusable", some people really just mean "different than I'm used to"? Because to me, unusable means impossible to use, which we know isn't true.
Sounds like another anti-innovation/change comment on hn. If this is not, please tell me how?
Change != always good.
And yes, before someone makes the statement, HN is made up of individuals with their own opinions etc. etc.
If your mentality is always "if it ain't broke don't fix it" then you're probably going to get disrupted. Windows 7 wasn't broke, but the future of the desktop environment looks like it might be, so Microsoft is trying to merge desktop and mobile. It may not work, but you must at least somewhat sympathize with their need to try.
The UI-formerly-known-as-Metro doesn't seem to offer even minor benefits to keyboard and mouse users. It's benefits to Microsoft are more clear, but that doesn't make the inconvience to users any less real.
And you Microsoft Office ribbon example is great! That was another change that many saw as "change for change's sake", but it's become a UI function that the vast majority appreciate and depend on. I'm sure many of the HN crowd would have, or did, lambast the ribbon on introduction, and I'm equally sure many of them have come to love it. It sure didn't take me long.
the ribbon i think is far less of a drastic UI change then metro.
The ribbon was just changing the text menus to a persistent large tool bar with tabs. Metro is like bolting a touch interface overtop of the standard desktop interface and replacing the start menu with it.
How does this benefit the actual customer? I don't have a tablet, and I'm not planning to buy one. It's great that Microsoft will only have one code base for the two platforms, but that's great for them, not for me.
Well, maybe the second of those would have been a good idea: spend a few more years adding features and polish. But presumably they wanted basically that OS out there competing with iOS and Android. And perhaps they reckon more people will buy Surface and Windows Phone devices when the UI feels more familiar on account of using it on desktop and laptop computers.
And, actually, it's hard to see how Windows 8 would get more users, or make more money for Microsoft, if they wait three years instead of starting to sell it now and gradually improving it over those three years. I can see only one way: if the wait lets them make more radical changes that they can't apply to an OS that's already out there being used. But there's a limit to how much you can change at once without alienating everyone, and Windows 8 may be pushing it already.
Most of the wealthy people in Europe probably felt that way in the 18th century about their society. But it's a good thing that this particular opinion is silly and holds no water, right? Something existing to your level of liking is perhaps the best reason to change it.
This seems... ridiculous to me.
Computers are tools enabling us to do certain tasks with greater ease. If the computer does this fluidly and with minimal effort then it is a good tool. On the other hand, if a new version of the tool adds to the effort required to achieve the same or similar tasks then the new tool is not as good as the old.
This has nothing to do with resisting change, but resisting change for change's sake.
I strongly disagree that Windows 7 matches this description. I find managing windows to be very difficult, for example: no Always on Top, no Focus Follows Mouse, etc. Multiple monitor support is lacking (no option for second taskbar, etc.) Windows 7 also defaults to Reboot without explicit user permission. Some of this is fixed in 8, some of it is not. The point here is that Windows 7 is most definitely NOT "minimal effort" or "fluid". At least, not for me.
> On the other hand, if a new version of the tool adds to the effort required to achieve the same or similar tasks then the new tool is not as good as the old.
Is there any evidence that Windows 8 adds to the effort required to achieve the same task compared to Windows 7? I don't think so.
Also, huge swathes of the world are starting off their computing experience as Mobile-Only. Kenya has very few desktop computers as compared to cell phones, for example. Microsoft is preparing for the new paradigm while not forcing it on anyone (desktop mode, you could keep using Windows 7, etc).
The point is that just because the Windows-7-using elite of the world are happy right now DOES NOT mean that the product is good to leave as it is. There is huge room for improvement.
The comparison was meant to open the discussion to the idea that many of the world's future computer users are not familiar with, nor care about, the workflow in Windows 7. Windows 8 may be better for them to use.
And concerning the the 15 dollar upgrade for recent purchases of PCs with Win 7 this is a quick little money grab by MS. They already sold the OEM the Win 7 license so they aren't cannibalizing any potential existing sales.
Agree: It wasn't a headache:) I have 2 ATI 4870s in crossfire right now and the ATI drivers were not working well. A lot of stuff that worked on windows 7 was not working on windows 8. Granted, that was the RC, but I don't want to install and find out that it wasn't fixed. 2. Users need the option to opt-out of metro. Period (!).
I'm going to wait for SP1, allow developers to catch up a bit and then jump in. I really liked the speed and the additions made to windows 8, I just think it needs a little time mature.
However I can't say I am any more productive than I was with Windows 2000.
Looks like they're setting the font explicitly to 'Segoe UI' and nothing else in many spots. Telerik, a .NET CMS provider does a similar thing.
http://www.foolproof.co.uk/is-planet-earth-ready-for-windows...
This is no different in Windows 7. After logging in, surely you would start any application, either by opening the Start menu, or by clicking a application pinned to the task bar, or by double-clicking a shortcut on the desktop. You can put anything onto the Windows 8 Start screen (just right click a file or directory and select Pin to Start), so it's functionally identical -- just with bigger buttons.
And if you really don't like it, you can always move the Desktop tile to the top left, so you can enter the desktop by pressing Enter.
We did warn them... but did they listen?
Unless by putting "paid" in scare quotes, you were implying something slightly less scrupulous...