Page 1 of 3
Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 09.47
by Gavin Scott
From
BBC News
Microsoft has taken the wraps off the next generation of its Windows operating system.
Windows 8 is designed to run on tablet computers, as well as desktop and laptop PCs.
The software, which is due to be released in 2012 will work on the popular ARM-designed low power processors for the first time.
Microsoft has been under pressure to come up with an answer to Apple's iOS and Google's Android platforms.
Unveiling Windows 8 at the Build developers' conference in California, Windows division president Steven Sinofsky declared: "We re-imagined Windows. From the chipset to the user experience."
The system will function through one of two interfaces; a traditional desktop, similar to that seen in previous editions of Windows, and a tablet version, known as Metro.
Metro features larger, chunky controls of the sort that best suit touchscreen use. The current lack of such an input method is widely seen as the reason why few Windows 7 tablets exist.
Microsoft said that it would also be launching its own online marketplace - the Windows Store - to sell downloadable applications.
One of the biggest innovations for Windows 8 will be its compatibility with processors designed by ARM holdings.
Chips based around the ARM architecture typically use very little power, and as a result are found in the vast majority of smartphones and tablets currently available.
To date, Windows devices have required Intel or Intel-compatible processors, with the exception of Microsoft's Windows Phone range.
ARM chips are likely to be predominantly used on Windows 8 Metro devices, and will require ARM-specific versions of applications.
The company has not given details on the chips that will be integrated into desktop and laptop machines.
Tapping into any section of the Windows market will be seen as a huge boost for Cambridge-based ARM Holdings.
The company faces growing competition in the mobile device sector since Intel launched its tablet and smartphone-focused Oak Trail chipset in April 2011.
Tapping into that particular market is seen as vital for hardware manufacturers, and software-makers, such as Microsoft, as the market for traditional computers continues to be eroded.
Industry analysts Gartner predicted in April that the global market for tablets would reach 70 million this year, and grow to 300 million in 2015.
Sales of desktops and laptops are expected to continue growing, but at a much slower rate than in the past.
Nice nod to Metropol there, naming the touch interface after us. I guess it was to be expected, what with Steve Jobs putting my name in the iPhone ad.
So - thoughts on this?
Re: Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 10.01
by woah
I'm really not sure if I'm keen on the Metro interface - or the bizarre switch between the Windows standard desktop and it. I wonder how regular problems like Office, Chrome, Firefox, Photoshop, et cetera will be designed into the Metro design?
I'm interested to see and keen to get my hands on the beta whenever that may be. I'm not sure though after using Windows for all of my computer life and knowing it inside out that I'm going to transfer easily to a totally new interface and one that seems more suited for mobiles or tablets then a proper, powerful PC..
Can't imagine it being very popular with businesses either - they hated Vista, they aren't taking up on 7 very much and with a totally new interface I can't see them warming to this either - and I think it's essential that businesses dump XP very soon now it's entered it's 10th year. Imagine businesses still using Windows 98 in 2008? Nonetheless I presume the standard Windows desktop will be kept for workstations on domains or any business computers for now.
Re: Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 10.37
by Nick Harvey
I am naturally against it unless Microsoft can finally nail their "every other one is good" reputation.
I hear 1 was good, though I never saw it myself, 2 was rubbish, 3 was good, 95 was rubbish, 98 was good, ME/2000 was rubbish, XP was good, Vista was rubbish, 7 was good.
They'll need to break that tradition big time for me not to wait for 9 to come along.
And that's before even trying it, so you can see how the tradition seems to have become ingrained.
Re: Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 10.50
by DVB Cornwall
My understanding is that the Metro interface is OPTIONAL and that the traditional desktop is very much still there in Windows8. Metro would appear to operate as a 'driving overlay' to the underlying structure.
Re: Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 11.57
by Gavin Scott
Nick Harvey wrote:I am naturally against it unless Microsoft can finally nail their "every other one is good" reputation.
A bit like Star Trek films then.
Our business has comfortably moved over to 7 - Vista was a disaster for the few client machines it had been on.
We'll not be switching platforms any time soon - and to be honest, I love 7 at the moment, and don't have enough curiosity to look at 8. Not until its beyond its first service pack, that is.
Re: Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 15.42
by WillPS
DVB Cornwall wrote:My understanding is that the Metro interface is OPTIONAL and that the traditional desktop is very much still there in Windows8. Metro would appear to operate as a 'driving overlay' to the underlying structure.
In this build at least, the Start menu is gone. Clicking the orb will take you to Metro UI...
Re: Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 16.00
by Jake
Got an old desktop machine I might give it a try on. My initial thought is that it looks nice, but seems to have a bit of an identity crisis.
Re: Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 16.18
by Pete
WillPS wrote:DVB Cornwall wrote:My understanding is that the Metro interface is OPTIONAL and that the traditional desktop is very much still there in Windows8. Metro would appear to operate as a 'driving overlay' to the underlying structure.
In this build at least, the Start menu is gone. Clicking the orb will take you to Metro UI...
Isn't getting to the old UI also achieved by selecting a tile, sort of like starting a VM (but not).
tsk @ the iso being 100mb too big for a DVD btw, am going to have to buy a new sodding USB stick.
Re: Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 16.35
by woah
The good thing is that the system requirements are supposed to be the same, or lower than Windows 7 and that they are using a new hybrid of shut down/hibernate for turning on/off so that process should be much quicker. Good to know Microsoft are making Windows less of a resources hog as they did from Vista to 7.
I just find the whole idea of using the Metro UI as well as the Windows desktop very unusual - not sure how it's all going to work. I'm also thinking this whole Metro UI might be a bit basic for a fully fledged desktop.
I'll hold off my concerns until I've tried out the beta, but for now I'm not convinced this is going to work, or be popular with customers/businesses..
Re: Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 16.42
by Gavin Scott
I've been having a thunk since I posted this morning.
If I were to be able to gain full Windows accessibility from my iPad (instead of shambling around with remote desktop apps with no cursor keys and mouse control), then I might actually quite enjoy a handheld Windows lifestyle.
But at the moment I tend to think a Win tablet would have to run in conjunction with a full desktop.
That said - I've revised my ideas about how I use computers completely since getting my iPad. Things I would consider "desktop only" have happily shifted into handheld use, and moreover I do additional things on a handheld device that I wouldn't consider using a desktop for.
So god only knows, really. Perhaps a completely open mind will be required when looking at this.
Re: Windows 8
Posted: Wed 14 Sep, 2011 20.08
by m-in-m
Nick Harvey wrote:I am naturally against it unless Microsoft can finally nail their "every other one is good" reputation.
I hear 1 was good, though I never saw it myself, 2 was rubbish, 3 was good, 95 was rubbish, 98 was good, ME/2000 was rubbish, XP was good, Vista was rubbish, 7 was good.
They'll need to break that tradition big time for me not to wait for 9 to come along.
And that's before even trying it, so you can see how the tradition seems to have become ingrained.
I'm sorry but ME and 2000 were very different products and fundamentally came from different code bases. ME was a Windows 9x code base while Windows 2000 was under pinned by NT.
Windows 2000 was fundamentally a very good product and was still in use in business environments probably close to the day Microsoft dropped support.