Windows 8 Consumer Preview

.Griff. · Mar 01, 2012, 12:52:11

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/consumer-preview

Anyone tried it yet? Although it seems to be generating rave reviews after trying the developer release last year I'm in no rush to try the consumer preview.

sobranie · Mar 01, 2012, 13:48:52

Vista had rave reviews too!

pctech · Mar 01, 2012, 13:51:45

Good point, going to hang fire on ordering a new PC until its been out a bit.

psp83 · Mar 01, 2012, 14:42:57

I've got it installed as a VM and I can't get used to it at the moment.

Desktop mode is weird, not having a start/menu button, keep moving the mouse to bottom left and end up clicking IE10 $:-\$

Oh and having 80/20 connection is great when downloading things like this

Technical Ben · Mar 01, 2012, 16:34:05

Quote from: sobranie on Mar 01, 2012, 13:48:52
Vista had rave reviews too!

"Reviews" or paid reporters, advertisers and sales reps?
No doubt Joe public will love it, but that will mainly be those who don't know any better. Like those who thought "copy and paste" were new features when added to Windows Phone 7 and IOs months/years after the release (I've had it on most of my normal phones!).

Personally I see nothing wrong with the OS. The GUI though is unusable to me. I don't need to use it to know my eyes cannot cope with the colours and information overload. I turned Widgets off on Win 7 for a reason! I don't want them forced on me in Win 8. Mind you, no need to upgrade till at least Win 9 or 10/X.

gizmo71 · Mar 01, 2012, 21:17:04

I'm more interested in Server 8 and the improvements it brings to Hyper-V, but I'll hang fire until the production release.

esh · Mar 01, 2012, 21:26:09

I'm kind of interested to try it actually, but I simply have no intention to upgrade from Win 7 unless it's £15 or something. Just no need to, that's all.

pctech · Mar 01, 2012, 21:53:43

Downloading the ISO to run in VirtualBox and we have it running on a machine at work, can't say I like what I've seen.

Technical Ben · Mar 01, 2012, 22:10:01

Perhaps it's the plan. It's a lull in the economy, they probably have a contingency fund to insure against their failure. I think they made a play about betting on the other side, see "The Producers".

Glenn · Apr 17, 2012, 12:08:23

According to the BBC it will run on Arm and Intel chipped devices, no mention of AMD chipped PC's, only 3 versions will be available.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17740566

Technical Ben · Apr 17, 2012, 12:19:35

I thought only the tablet version runs on ARM? They seem different enough to me for them not to be classed as the same "OS" when running on a tablet.

pctech · Apr 17, 2012, 12:23:48

As far as I'm aware AMD use the x86 instruction set so should just run the 'intel' version, think Auntie is a bit behind the times there

Technical Ben · Apr 17, 2012, 12:29:10

I don't think they mentioned AMD. They mentioned ARM? (Might be a reading fail. Early morning? ;P )

Glenn · Apr 17, 2012, 12:33:34

"For those with Intel-based machines," Ben, missing out "For those with AMD-based machines"

.Griff. · Apr 17, 2012, 12:47:06

Quote from: Glenn on Apr 17, 2012, 12:33:34
"For those with Intel-based machines," Ben, missing out "For those with AMD-based machines"

Lazy journalism that's all. Of course Windows 8 will support AMD processors.

Technical Ben · Apr 17, 2012, 14:46:26

I thought that's what it's actually called. It's the name of the chip and the brand. IE, Intel make intel type CPUs. AMD also make intel type CPUs. Both may make ARM type cpus later.

"The term x86 refers to a family of instruction set architectures based on the Intel 8086 CPU." So for simplicities sake, as Intel invented the x86 it's called "an Intel chip" although other companies now make their own versions.

PS, the BBC article says "Intel-compatible machines" which is correct. AMD make Intel compatible machines, as it's Intel's original designs and architecture. The BBC seem to have been correct in not saying "Intel-chipped" machines.

pctech · Apr 17, 2012, 14:59:45

Quote from: .Griff. on Apr 17, 2012, 12:47:06
Lazy journalism that's all. Of course Windows 8 will support AMD processors.

That was my point, AMDs have run x86 for years.

Baz · Apr 17, 2012, 15:47:57

windows 8

ive lost track now is in the good then bad then good cycle of windows OS...what will this one be

shall I just stick with XP

cavillas · Apr 17, 2012, 16:12:30

Quote from: Baz on Apr 17, 2012, 15:47:57
windows 8 ive lost track now is in the good then bad then good cycle of windows OS...what will this one be

shall I just stick with XP

Perhaps it would be better to go back to windows 2000, no activation needed and it will run really fast on newer machines.

pctech · Apr 17, 2012, 18:14:50

I had 2000 on my desktop at work until 2005 when those in control of the network at work decided XP was safe to be deployed on the network and I got an upgrade from a Pentium 3 800 Mhz to a Pentium 4 running at 3 Ghz

It ran quite happily.

Rik · Apr 17, 2012, 18:24:52

It jogged even more happily and, when walking, was ecstatic.

pctech · Apr 17, 2012, 20:14:42

armadillo · Apr 17, 2012, 23:23:05

I would prefer to wait to adopt an OS until it is on at least its first service pack and preferably its second. I built a new machine when XP went to SP2 and I am still using it, though now on SP3. Not sure whether Windows 7 is currently on a service pack. But, if I ever have to build a new machine, I would probably now skip Windows 7 and go straight to Windows 8 SP2. I wonder how long it will take to reach that point?

I see no point at all in upgrading a current machine to a new OS. They tend to design hardware specifically for the latest Windows OS. If your current hardware/OS combination is working, I think it is tempting fate to mess with the OS and go to one which the hardware was not designed for. If I need a new machine, I would rather wait until the components say "designed for Windows 8".

Lance · Apr 17, 2012, 23:35:49

Windows 7 is on SP1 at the moment.

zappaDPJ · Apr 18, 2012, 00:36:30

I wonder how well Windows 8 will work with multiple display configurations. Support for it in Windows 7 is not particularly good which is a little surprising given that most decent graphics cards have supported two displays for many years now. It's hard to tell from the demos I've seen but my gut feeling is that 8 might not work too well with more than one display. I hope I'm wrong, if I am I'll probably upgrade sooner rather than later.

Technical Ben · Apr 18, 2012, 08:59:17

Well, for one thing the app bar thing window does not support mutiple displays. Which is OK for a pc, but not good for a multiple display media system. :/

armadillo · Apr 18, 2012, 11:40:35

Quote from: zappaDPJ on Apr 18, 2012, 00:36:30
I wonder how well Windows 8 will work with multiple display configurations. Support for it in Windows 7 is not particularly good ...

Can you explain in what sense it is not particularly good?

On my Windows XP system, it is the ATI graphics driver (Catalyst) that gives support for two displays. I can switch between either of two displays, with appropriate resolutions and refresh rates for each, or have them both simultaneously as clones. And I can set keyboard hotkeys to switch amongst those modes.

Does Windows 7 prevent that?

zappaDPJ · Apr 18, 2012, 15:01:58

You can do that with both ATI and NVIDIA drivers but there are things you can't do across the entire range of Windows OS. For example you can't spread a single background image/wallpaper across two or more displays. One of the modes gets close but the bottom bar on the primary display interferes with the vertical positioning.

Windows 7 in particular appears to have a problem with remembering the state and positioning of an application window when it was last open, particularly if its on a secondary display. Another major source of annoyance is that clicking on the background of my primary display often causes unwanted action in a maximised window on a secondary display. That might be content lead though and not an OS issue.

I sometimes lose everything pinned to a secondary display on a reboot. That seems to be an issue with Windows 7, I don't recall it happening on Vista. It's really just a lot of small issues like that which need addressing.

armadillo · Apr 18, 2012, 15:44:05

Thank you zap. That is clear now. None of those would be an issue for me but I fully understand that they would be annoying if you need those aspects.

Technical Ben · Apr 18, 2012, 16:01:38

Yep, I had those little niggling things. Nothing major thankfully. Just the tendency for windows to forget and not update the second displays desktop arrangement, so I have to move everything by hand each time. The only other thing is "window focus" but that may be program specific. Most programs are made to "pause" if you click anywhere outside the window. This means running a program (or game

) and trying to click a web page will cause the program to stop. Can be annoying.