Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 31st May 2012 12:24 UTC
Windows "Microsoft has been furiously ripping out legacy code in Windows 8 that would have enabled third parties to bring back the Start button, Start Menu, and other software bits that could have made this new OS look and work like its predecessor. In fact, I've seen that several well-known UI hacks that worked fine with the Windows 8 Consumer Preview are no longer functional in the coming Release Preview. And those with hopes that Microsoft would allow businesses, at least, to boot directly to the desktop should prepare for disappointment. That feature not only isn't happening, it's being removed from Windows Server 12 (Windows 8's stable mate) as well." When you buy a new machine later this year, you will use Metro, an environment wholly inferior, incomplete, and not at all ready to replace the traditional desktop in any way, shape, or form. Whether you like it or not.
Thread beginning with comment 520306
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by AnythingButVista
by mrstep on Fri 1st Jun 2012 06:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by AnythingButVista"
mrstep
Member since:
2009-07-18

"FYI: Vista sucked, not because of the changes in the UI but because it dragged its feet on machines where XP flew and as demonstrated by Windows 7 running much faster than Vista (albeit understandably slower than XP) on the same hardware, Vista's excessive weight was totally unnecessary.


Vista didn't suck - that's mainly a perception due to the UAC, which was a necessary evil.

Yes, it wasn't as performant as XP. It also had several massive rewrites in its layers, and a better interactive model between the components. Win7 is Vista optimized, more or less, with a few enhancements.
"

MS was trying to update the UI (first time you could even have real buffered windows without the 'classic' Windows flicker - jeez, took them long enough, but credit is due for them at least finally doing it), did very visible UI updates only halfway (like the "integrated" control panel where you'd click for an option and immediately get an old version of a sub-panel in its own window anyway), updated the internals - in the process replacing them with very un-optimized code (as you say as well), broke their old drivers in the process, and iced the cake with incredibly intrusive UAC.

Unfortunately they also pushed it out the door that way instead of finishing their alpha/beta cycle. I'd have to go with Vista sucking.

Reply Parent Score: 1

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"[q]FYI: Vista sucked, not because of the changes in the UI but because it dragged its feet on machines where XP flew and as demonstrated by Windows 7 running much faster than Vista (albeit understandably slower than XP) on the same hardware, Vista's excessive weight was totally unnecessary.


Vista didn't suck - that's mainly a perception due to the UAC, which was a necessary evil.

Yes, it wasn't as performant as XP. It also had several massive rewrites in its layers, and a better interactive model between the components. Win7 is Vista optimized, more or less, with a few enhancements.
"

MS was trying to update the UI (first time you could even have real buffered windows without the 'classic' Windows flicker - jeez, took them long enough, but credit is due for them at least finally doing it), did very visible UI updates only halfway (like the "integrated" control panel where you'd click for an option and immediately get an old version of a sub-panel in its own window anyway), updated the internals - in the process replacing them with very un-optimized code (as you say as well), broke their old drivers in the process, and iced the cake with incredibly intrusive UAC.

Unfortunately they also pushed it out the door that way instead of finishing their alpha/beta cycle. I'd have to go with Vista sucking. [/q]

Microsoft went through quite a bit in the source between XP and Vista. Among them:

- Fixed the circular dependencies between kernel space and user space (yes, NT Kernel was dependent on user space).
- Lowered Dependency tree from 1500+ levels to something smaller (don't know what)
- Restructured the Headers so that they can be more easily used without having 100's of other files included.
- Rewrote the Video Driver system for User-Space Video Drivers and (to please MPAA/BlueRay) have "secure" video paths.
- Rewrote the Sound Driver system for User-Space Sound Drivers
- Rewrote the Printer Driver system for User-Space Printer Drivers
- Rewrote the Network Driver system, and IP-Stack for better IPv4 and IPv6 support.
- Internet Explorer as part of Kernel Space was removed; still integrates to user-space components for "Acive Desktop" like stuff, but no longer touches the Kernel Space.
- New Graphics API (Aero) that had better performance, shading, transparency, and more. (Note: XP's native interface had lower performance than it's Classic Interface. With Vista, the native interface had better performance than the Classic Interface.)

MinWin was one part of the Vista project; at the time Vista was released they had the foot print down to about 40MB. They continued the project; as of Win7 it's smaller yet.

For Win7, they reduced the dependency tree even further, and optimized much of what they did for Vista as well; and did more on top of that. I'm sure they've continued that effort for Win8.

Reply Parent Score: 2