windows 8 pre alpha

[dannykard]

It's really this Windows Midori?

 

[Jon55]

It's really this Windows Midori?

God I hope not, that looks terrible.

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

It's really this Windows Midori?

I'm sure any versions of Windows after Windows 7 will be a bit more advanced in the GUI department.

Oh this is random but does a 21" Touchscreen monitor exist? Can't seem to find one. >.> (checked tigerdirect and newegg)

 

[XBeast]

It's really this Windows Midori?

hey, where did you get that wallpaper from, i kinda liked it.

 

[Win7User512]

I'm sure any versions of Windows after Windows 7 will be a bit more advanced in the GUI department.

Oh this is random but does a 21" Touchscreen monitor exist? Can't seem to find one. >.> (checked tigerdirect and newegg)

A 21" prob exists, but not on the market OR may just not be available to places like Egg and TD.

 

[dannykard]

hey, where did you get that wallpaper from, i kinda liked it.

Sorry this is not mine :s i took it from the web.

Someone knows when Windows 8 Pre Alpha will be available to download?

 

[XBeast]

Sorry this is not mine :s i took it from the web.

Someone knows when Windows 8 Pre Alpha will be available to download?

can you please give me the link to the wallpaper?

 

[Shak 10]

tbh i dont't think microsoft are at a position to start making pre-alpha builds of an operating sysyem whos predecossor hasn't even be released. How do microsoft know what parts to improve on if there previous OS isn't even finished?

 

[ppp]

My biggest concern is that Win 8 changes the driver model again. This is a big part of what killed Vista's WOW. OEMs were not ready, and Vista had too much teething after such a long incubation.

Are you sure that what killed Vista's "WOW" wasn't that it was a huge resource pig? I mean, its memory footprint at idle is 2x (or more) that of Windows XP or Windows 7.

I'm just sayin'.

Or maybe it was the millions of machines marketed as Vista machines that ran it without Aero?

Or maybe it was the back-room dealing with hardware vendors to phase out unprofitable parts by refusing any support for Vista? (Think Intel 915 GFX which worked in RC0, worked in RC1, and suddenly had no support in RC2 and the OS refused to acknowledge the RC0/RC1 drivers as valid!)

Or maybe it was the sleep mode which blue-screened virtually every laptop out there once in a while for no apparent reason?

We could go on, if you like. Drivers didn't do in Vista. Vista was great until halfway through the RC process when it suddenly got terrible for no reason. Massive code branch changes made due to marketing decisions after code freeze... FTL!

(And before you criticise - I ran Vista x64 exclusively until Win7 got stable. But I'm the first to admit that I had to buy better hardware to make it workable!)

 

[PhreePhly]

Are you sure that what killed Vista's "WOW" wasn't that it was a huge resource pig? I mean, its memory footprint at idle is 2x (or more) that of Windows XP or Windows 7.

I'm just sayin'.

What is everyones problem with an OS actually making use of the available memory. Do you understand what Superfetch was all about? What's cool about only having 2% of your 8 GB of RAM in use. You're already wasting power on the chips, why not use them? The biggest difference in Win7 is how efficient the DWM is. That's part of the WDDM 1.1 upgrade. Other than that Win 7 appropriates memory much like Vista does, especially after SP2.

Or maybe it was the millions of machines marketed as Vista machines that ran it without Aero?

Yea, 'cause reading Vista Basic (which was clearly marked and sold as NOT running Aero) is so hard. You want a $100 computer, you get a $100 computer.

Or maybe it was the back-room dealing with hardware vendors to phase out unprofitable parts by refusing any support for Vista? (Think Intel 915 GFX which worked in RC0, worked in RC1, and suddenly had no support in RC2 and the OS refused to acknowledge the RC0/RC1 drivers as valid!)

Intel writes the drivers, not MS. You have a problem with Intel's handling of that, write them a note. So, in response to my initial arguement, yes Drivers took out the WOW.

Or maybe it was the sleep mode which blue-screened virtually every laptop out there once in a while for no apparent reason?

Ran Vista on 7 different laptops at work, never had a sleep issue. In fact, sleep finally worked as advertised as XP could never handle it properly. The laptops were from 3 different vendors.

We could go on, if you like. Drivers didn't do in Vista. Vista was great until halfway through the RC process when it suddenly got terrible for no reason. Massive code branch changes made due to marketing decisions after code freeze... FTL!

(And before you criticise - I ran Vista x64 exclusively until Win7 got stable. But I'm the first to admit that I had to buy better hardware to make it workable!)

The only massive code change that occured was on the Audio side, and there was good reason for that. While i agree it should have never happened that late in the game. The fact that audio was the one component that had almost unfettered access to hardware made it a security issue, and the biggest mandate with this release was that it wouldn't be like XP in it's original release.

PhreePhly

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

What is everyones problem with an OS actually making use of the available memory. Do you understand what Superfetch was all about? What's cool about only having 2% of your 8 GB of RAM in use. You're already wasting power on the chips, why not use them? The biggest difference in Win7 is how efficient the DWM is. That's part of the WDDM 1.1 upgrade. Other than that Win 7 appropriates memory much like Vista does, especially after SP2.



Yea, 'cause reading Vista Basic (which was clearly marked and sold as NOT running Aero) is so hard. You want a $100 computer, you get a $100 computer.



Intel writes the drivers, not MS. You have a problem with Intel's handling of that, write them a note. So, in response to my initial arguement, yes Drivers took out the WOW.



Ran Vista on 7 different laptops at work, never had a sleep issue. In fact, sleep finally worked as advertised as XP could never handle it properly. The laptops were from 3 different vendors.



The only massive code change that occured was on the Audio side, and there was good reason for that. While i agree it should have never happened that late in the game. The fact that audio was the one component that had almost unfettered access to hardware made it a security issue, and the biggest mandate with this release was that it wouldn't be like XP in it's original release.

PhreePhly

Well said, it is not Microsoft's job to re-write drivers for everything, it is the vendors responsibilty. I personally hope Intel release a GMA 4500MHD driver for 'windows 7' soon as my vista one keeps crashing (and the ones from Windows Update wont let me play games properly).

Anyways wasn't this thread supposed to be focused on 'Windows 8 Pre-Alpha'?

 

[mxosder16]

Eight Forums is where it will all happen

 

[z3r010]

Eight Forums is where it will all happen

Or maybe it will happen somewhere else

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

Or maybe it will happen somewhere else

Hello John.


Start it up, I'll be there.











Later Ted

 

[Dark Nova Gamer]

Or maybe it will happen somewhere else

Hello John.


Start it up, I'll be there.











Later Ted

As will I, and a bunch of others aswell I assume. =P

 

[7echno7im]

Thats windows 7 with the nexus bar. Nothing new....

 

[ppp]

What is everyones problem with an OS actually making use of the available memory. Do you understand what Superfetch was all about? What's cool about only having 2% of your 8 GB of RAM in use. You're already wasting power on the chips, why not use them? The biggest difference in Win7 is how efficient the DWM is. That's part of the WDDM 1.1 upgrade. Other than that Win 7 appropriates memory much like Vista does, especially after SP2.

Having not played with Vista SP2 I can't comment on the accuracy of this statement. I'll have to trust you. But I can say that while I'm ok with making use of available memory, I'm not ok with overallocation. When a 2GB machine has 1.9GB allocated, and has to swap to do anything... that's BAD memory management. When a 4GB machine has 2GB allocated, that's just fine.

I work in server-land, where SQL and Exchange suck all the available memory out of a machine. But I don't expect a good desktop experience with those machines (and I certainly don't get it on the Exchange 2007 servers, by golly).

Yea, 'cause reading Vista Basic (which was clearly marked and sold as NOT running Aero) is so hard. You want a $100 computer, you get a $100 computer.

You can mock people all you like, but the US court system seemed to feel the marketing was disingenuous.

Intel writes the drivers, not MS. You have a problem with Intel's handling of that, write them a note. So, in response to my initial arguement, yes Drivers took out the WOW.

Interesting. So there was NO collusion? None? At all? I beg to differ. I'm not saying it isn't Intel's fault. It CLEARLY is. But MS is not blameless here.

Ran Vista on 7 different laptops at work, never had a sleep issue. In fact, sleep finally worked as advertised as XP could never handle it properly. The laptops were from 3 different vendors.

I love posts like this. I've had sleep bluescreens on EVERY laptop I've run Vista on. Are we both right? Yes. But just because you didn't personally see them doesn't mean they weren't there. Try an HP business-class laptop some time. Every one will bluescreen on resume with Vista. Ditto with Toshiba laptops with 915 chipsets. Is it Intel's fault for bad drivers? Sure. But EVERYTHING is a driver. The kernel is small. You can't pin everything on Intel.

The only massive code change that occured was on the Audio side, and there was good reason for that. While i agree it should have never happened that late in the game. The fact that audio was the one component that had almost unfettered access to hardware made it a security issue, and the biggest mandate with this release was that it wouldn't be like XP in it's original release.

I beg to differ. The sleep mode kernel changes made mid-RC are well documented. Hybrid sleep and Deep sleep worked GREAT in RC0 and not so great in RC2. Somewhere in there it got broken. RC means STOP CHANGING BASE CODE. That's pretty universal. Feature complete. Interface changes and critical bug fixes only. Don't rework the kernel.

-------------

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. But to lay it firmly on the shoulders of the vendors isn't fair, either. When 90% of the laptops on the market use an Intel 9xx chipset, MS has an obligation to make sure that its OS works with that chipset. Full stop.

 

[PhreePhly]

Having not played with Vista SP2 I can't comment on the accuracy of this statement. I'll have to trust you. But I can say that while I'm ok with making use of available memory, I'm not ok with overallocation. When a 2GB machine has 1.9GB allocated, and has to swap to do anything... that's BAD memory management. When a 4GB machine has 2GB allocated, that's just fine.

I work in server-land, where SQL and Exchange suck all the available memory out of a machine. But I don't expect a good desktop experience with those machines (and I certainly don't get it on the Exchange 2007 servers, by golly).

Allocated with what? My original laptop had a 2 GB limit. Running Vista SP1 showed a typical memory footprint of 1.1 GB. It showed an additional 400 - 600 MB in Standy and the rest free. That standby memory will not cause swapping. It is immediately freed when needed.

You can mock people all you like, but the US court system seemed to feel the marketing was disingenuous.

The US court system is notorious for erring on the side of STUPID. That is why we need a warning label not to use the microwave to dry your baby.

Interesting. So there was NO collusion? None? At all? I beg to differ. I'm not saying it isn't Intel's fault. It CLEARLY is. But MS is not blameless here.

Claim all the collusion you want, but with the US.gov watching Intel and MS like hawks, I doubt very seriously that collusion can be proven. Good luck proving that.

I love posts like this. I've had sleep bluescreens on EVERY laptop I've run Vista on. Are we both right? Yes. But just because you didn't personally see them doesn't mean they weren't there. Try an HP business-class laptop some time. Every one will bluescreen on resume with Vista. Ditto with Toshiba laptops with 915 chipsets. Is it Intel's fault for bad drivers? Sure. But EVERYTHING is a driver. The kernel is small. You can't pin everything on Intel.

One of the laptops was an HP business class. An Elitebook 8730w. Sleep and hybrid sleep work just fine. Don't know about Toshiba. The Laptops I worked with were Dells, HPs and MPCs(re-badged Samsungs). Not a single one had sleep problems in Vista. Is there some software that you are installing that is causing the problem? These were a mix of 32- and 64-bit.

I beg to differ. The sleep mode kernel changes made mid-RC are well documented. Hybrid sleep and Deep sleep worked GREAT in RC0 and not so great in RC2. Somewhere in there it got broken. RC means STOP CHANGING BASE CODE. That's pretty universal. Feature complete. Interface changes and critical bug fixes only. Don't rework the kernel.

I'm trying to find out about the kernel changes you mentioned. The only thing I remember is that MS made a change to S3 power management with is the "deep sleep" or hiberation mode. It wasn't so much a change, but fixes, as RC0 had a terrible time of hibernation. RC0 would go into normal sleep just fine.

However, much of the sleep problem was also squarely on the BIOS writer's shoulders. It was amazing how a few BIOS re-writes fixed sleep. The major Vendors were very bad at power management in the BIOS, and Vista's management of sleep states made strict adherence to ACPI Specs.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you. But to lay it firmly on the shoulders of the vendors isn't fair, either. When 90% of the laptops on the market use an Intel 9xx chipset, MS has an obligation to make sure that its OS works with that chipset. Full stop.

But Intel writes the graphics driver. I don't disagree that Intel wanted to force upgrades to a newer graphics chip, so they removed support for Aero in the older chipset, but again, that's intel and MS can't really impinge on Intel's IP and write the driver.

PhreePhly

 

[Uber Philf]

Hello John.


Start it up, I'll be there.


Later Ted

Will you admins make a Windows 8 forum? , ima join when/if it happens

 

[LFB]

Yeah... a brand new Eight Forums would be great...