Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 16th Jun 2012 17:52 UTC
Windows Adrian Kingsley-Hughes pens a rant on Windows 8, calling it 'awful': "I'm now ready to sum up my Windows 8 experience with a single word: awful. I could have chosen a number of other words - terrible, horrible, painful and execrable all spring to mind - but it doesn't matter, the sentiment is the same." I've been using Windows 8 Release Preview on both my ZenBook and my regular desktop since its release, and here's my short review: "I like it." Issues a-plenty, but for what is essentially a 1.0 release - not bad. It's a hell of a lot better than other releases which were similar in scope (Mac OS X 10.0, KDE 4.0).
Thread beginning with comment 522493
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Crazy comparison
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 17th Jun 2012 16:09 UTC in reply to "Crazy comparison"
Member since:

I think OS X was a lot more work than simply building a new shell and adding a secure boot loader.

You clearly have no idea what's been going on under the hood with Windows these past few years.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Crazy comparison
by laffer1 on Sun 17th Jun 2012 16:28 in reply to "RE: Crazy comparison"
laffer1 Member since:

I've been trying Windows 8 on two systems. It's not terrible, but I don't see much improvement over Windows 7 outside of the obvious user interface changes. I'll admit the new interface is useful for consuming content, but I don't like it for getting real work done. Most of the documentation i've seen has been on the user interface and the metro toolkit stuff. If you have a reference that explains any changes they've made under the hood, I'd be happy to look at it. Otherwise, I stand behind what i've said.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Crazy comparison
by leos on Sun 17th Jun 2012 21:22 in reply to "RE: Crazy comparison"
leos Member since:

You clearly have no idea what's been going on under the hood with Windows these past few years.

If you think the change between the Windows 7 kernel and the Windows 8 is anywhere near as massive of a change as that between OS9 and 10, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Win8 has some incremental changes under the hood. OS10 was a complete break from OS9. No comparison.

And surprise surprise, you can see it in the end result. Win8 is not bad because it's slow or unstable (it isn't), it's bad because the design is trying to be the best for both desktops and tablets, which is likely impossible.

Edited 2012-06-17 21:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Crazy comparison
by Nelson on Sun 17th Jun 2012 21:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy comparison"
Nelson Member since:

It may not be major from a kernel point of view, but a lot of the subsystems in Windows 8 have been reengineered.

Hell, they reinvented COM (Introduced class level inheritance, modernized it) and had it underpin the WinRT framework. Then they subsequently created an entirely new, highly asynchronous API set to replace (and for the pedants, in some place supplement) the old Win32 API.

That's significant.

They redid their underlying Graphics stack to be powered by Direct2D, even GDI is underpinned by it now.

If there is no hardware available, the Direct2D renderer uses WARP (a highly efficient CPU rasterizer) to render the UI.

They made serious, significant investments in their networking stack with regards to mobile networking, data consumption, etc.

That's just a few things. So no, maybe it wasn't a completely radical change like OS9 to OSX, but it is significant nonetheless. Very significant.

Reply Parent Score: 2