What a surprise. Win8 is worse than the worst we thought it could be.
Printable View
What a surprise. Win8 is worse than the worst we thought it could be.
http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-said-...-8-7000002219/
Basically, there used to be a workaround through a shortcut which when run, would send you to the desktop (similar to the "show desktop" shortcut or the "lock workstation" shortcut). Users would add this shortcut to their scheduled tasks to run immediately after logging in, sending them straight to their desktop. Microsoft removed this, and it wasn't even "leftover" code like the start button "hacks" were.Quote:
Rafael Rivera, coauthor of the forthcoming Windows 8 Secrets, said he has verified that users cannot boot straight to the Desktop in Windows 8. With Windows 8 test builds, users could create shortcut that switches to the Windows 8 Desktop. Those who didn't want to boot to the tiled Start screen could schedule this shortcut to be activated immediately after a user logged onto Windows 8.
In separate news, rumours have begun circulating that Valve is working on Source 2, evidenced by files in the Source Film Maker. Who here thinks they'll be favouring OpenGL this time around so they can give Microsoft the finger?
Not on Windows they won't. However, they've ramped up their OpenGL development in support of targeting Linux for Steam (with L4D2 being their first game on the platform)
They also decided to do OpenGL on Windows for L4D2 to see what they could do with it, and it's running even better than both their DX9 implementation and their OpenGL implementation on Linux.
:mech:
Umm, source?
Also, DX11 is the new hotness.
In other news Microsoft continues its role-play as a 15 year old belligerent teenager refusing to admit its idea is bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcap
OpenGL supremacy :realsmug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
One has to wonder about the superior performance on windows compared to linux, them being more familiar with the operating system as a whole or just poorly implemented graphics drivers for linux.
Maybe both.
Edit: Also Microsoft has mad the choice for me when it comes to operating systems, as Windows 7 blew itself up a few days ago. Been on Mint ever since. Thanks MS!
Uhm afaik L4D2 runs faster on Linux than on Windows.
MS making development on windows unbearable so more devs will turn to the kinnectbox whateverthingy.
Given the direction valve has taken recently it doesn't seem to be working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
Bam.
OpenGL is even more hot than DX11 now, because of both mobile and now because of everybody fleeing the shit that is Windows 8. Microsoft thinks they can strong-arm the entire industry...I'm betting they are wrong.
I wouldn't take much weight with that. Source on its own is incredibly lightweight. I'd pay more attention to it if Source actually used something more recent than SM 3.0.
I'm not really looking at the performance numbers, more the fact that they are testing OpenGL on Windows at all. I would expect it to run better since they've had time to refine their product and now have access to a brand new version of OpenGL, as well as increased familiarity with Windows. The numbers are pretty moot.
New versions of DX/OpenGL don't necessarily go back and improve old methods but simply add new ones. Rewriting a rendering solution for a 5 year old (six GPU generation) era title is a bit different than rewriting something that still hasn't been truly explored yet (DX11 things like tesselation and multithreading). With more teases of Valve's Source 2 engine poking around, I hope they're working on both APIs in parallel so we can compare much better.
But it is nice that some devs are taking another look at OpenGL. If Microsoft does try to mimic Apple and lock up Windows, then having engines handy with OpenGL support would be a lifesaver.
Also, there are two totally different compilers being used here (Visual C++, vs GCC or Clang. Hopefully Clang.). Meaning two different binaries. And they make no mention of whether those numbers are from release or debug builds. Or if whether ALL graphics features are implemented in both rendering engines (today, Source1 gfx aren't impressive to begin with).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeph
And I'm pretty damn sure their shit is still running on DX9 (you can't just change your library references to 11 and compile, they're not the same). DX11 introduces a lot of performance-positive features, on top of GFX features.
http://i.imgur.com/Us6lV.jpg
It's called Xbox Windows.
This is disgusting.
So the thing hooked up to my TV is now a part of windows. Like this won't confuse anyone.
Edit: Is this a response to apple's game center? Because I've never met anyone who uses it, in fact the only thing I ever hear about it is how ugly it is.
Windows? Xbox? Yikes, looks like we'll need some Windex to clear this up.
:downsrim:
inb4 not metro jokes.
Too lateQuote:
Originally Posted by Masterz1337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
I've yet to talk to anyone in the development world (multiple game publishers and studios, software engineering firms, etc) that have supported Windows 8 at all. Everyone is saying that Windows 7 will be the next Windows XP that everyone holds on to for years.
Spread the word to all your less techy friends that Windows 8 is going to be shit, and that they shouldn't be fooled by the sales people at Best Buy.
It pretty much is DX9 running as a subset of DX11.1. I've lost track of the designations after we moved into DX11, but is it called DX9.0el? When I was looking over the most recent whitesheets for Source I was kinda shocked that they used HLSL up to SM3.0 as a selling point, but then again that's kinda something important that you'd need to know when choosing an engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
Saw this, nothing really new, but for anyone who hasn't used it, it just shows how fucked regular customers will be when they try W8.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIMuJ...eature=related
Runs faster but doesn't look as good from what I've seen. They probably still have lots of room to tweak what they've done though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrickssj6
Win8 is officially out today. Oh, and it still blows. Just in case any of you wondered.
:downs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
GIVE US THETAGSSTARTBAR!
FUCK Metro. Or rather, FUCK the thing formerly known as Metro.
I don't know why everybody is focusing so much on the interface itself when it's the ideas and mechanics behind the interface that are the big deal.
Oh wait, i c wut u did thar Microsoft.
There's no such thing as a trusted windows computer.
Perfect article explaining why Win8 makes no sense: http://www.pcgamesn.com/article/why-...ling-windows-8
Oh... I am going to have so much fun when my step-dad installs Windows 8 and realizes that he can't figure it out.
As for me, I figure I'll move on to Windows 7 finally. I now realize that 2003 ended nine years ago.
Wait...you mean to tell me you've been using XP on your main machine(s) up until now, still? Y U NO SWITCH TO W7 SOONER?
Because it still works?
Still waiting for windows 7 to fix itself because I'm way too lazy to be fucked about it.
XP is such a dump anymore. It's hardly supported. Windows 7 was the way to go. Haven't had issues in years. Don't know what you're going on about.
That was a terrible article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
Here's a better one.
Windows Vista still unchallenged as best Windows Operating system!
Windows 8 isn't good for anything. Didn't you read the part where you have to go through 3 menus just to shut down your damn computer?
Back when I was using the first version that was released, all I did to shut the computer down was ctrl+alt+delete and the shutdown was there. The fucking OS was still a piece of shit though. Windows 7 is going to be the new XP.
Wait, who are you talking to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
You.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I didn't disagree with the article. I just said it was terrible, because it was. It was badly written.
I have absolutely zero love for Microsoft or Windows 8.
Microsoft slits their own throat
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft...-new-look.aspx
Old logo:
http://fishtrain.com/wp-content/uplo...osoft_logo.jpg
New logo:
http://blogs.technet.com/cfs-filesys...2D00_450x0.jpg
This is fucking retarded
I mean, seriously, just when when you thought the company already went full retard
Meanwhile, The Verge with their retarded cocksucking fucks think the logo is the best thing ever
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/23/32...osoft-new-logo
This is supposed to be the Windows 8 logo. What the fuck is it doing as the company logo. What do four colorful squares say about Microsoft as a company? The company that makes squares?
Four colorful squares are for:
1. Windows
2.
All of Microsoft needs to be gassed
Also The Verge
What it says is that Microsoft likes to fully associate itself with failed products.
(Both past and present)
Also that they lack any originality or innovation.
Um, no jcap, this is the Win8 logo:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nAXde_anR-...s-8-Logo-1.jpg
Now stop posting
Kornman, my point was that the official company logo is what the Windows 8 logo should have been. Not the retarded single color angled squares. Instead it should have been retarded multi-color squares.
Supposedly, the colors are supposed to represent the products.
Blue = Windows
Red = Office
Green = Xbox
Yellow = ??????????????????
They even fucked up with this. It should be
Blue = Windows
Red = Windows Phone (as it already is)
Green = Xbox
Yellow = Office (as it has been)
You're complaining about something of the same company which released the degenerate desktop OS known as Windows 8...we're already expecting them to churn out more bad shit, we don't need any more jcaphysteria. Or combo posts. You lazy admin. Why are you still an admin anyway?
Blue = Word
Red = Powerpoint
Green = Excel
Yellow = Outlook
Oh wait...
Jcap is mad again.
You should see him in irc.
He is like our dedicated w8 h8 dude.
Oh my. You mean they're not using that horrible HIGH TECH identity from the 90's and instead have chosen a clean typeface? They're so horrible.
I actually like the new Microsoft logo, but I would have made the logotype black for practical reasons. That said, I am going to miss the "chrome" in all of the Microsoft stuff.
Tell me why the new logo is any better.
What do you like about it?
It has no class. Nothing unique about it. It's "Microsoft" wrtitten out in Paint with the Segoe UI font.
The slit between the o and the s is as iconic as the FedEx arrow. It's what separates it from being "just text".
I have to say the old logo was better. I hope Bill Gates is crying and will become CEO again.
This is good, last I heard jcap's rage powers modacity's server.
Fuck it. Time to go to the 1975 logo. It was like, so much better and stuff. Damn Microsoft for putting the Windows logo in front of their name even though it's probably what they're best known for!
http://www.techieshelp.com/wp-conten...soft-logo1.jpg
Yo that's some retro shit!
He has stated, on multiple occasions, that he has no intentions of ever returning to Microsoft as CEO. And unfortunately, Ballmer will be with us in his current role until 2017 barring any horrendous change in the company's fortunes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
Ballmer's is stepping down from his current role as CEO after Windows 8's release in October (rumored)
However, he doesn't plan to retire until 2017.
Bill Gates did the same thing.
That new logo is going to cause endless amounts of headache. Like Jcap said, the old logo is iconic, you shouldnt fuck with brand imaging just so that you look as though you are doing things. The spacing is all kinds of fucked up in the new logo. Why the hell have they joined the F and the T?
Those who think this isnt a massive change, you are totally wrong. They are trying to bring 4 product lines together, but people will not see that.
http://asset2.cbsistatic.com/cnwk.1d...80_620x236.jpg
Oh yeaaaah
In my experience, I don't find myself lingering over the company logo. I see "Windows 2000" or "Windows 7" and kind of gloss over the word "Microsoft." Their product branding is far, far more prevalent than their company branding. This is an attempt to give the company itself more visibility. I'm a computer person, we are all computer people, so we all know immediately that Windows = Microsoft. Go talk to your average Joe, and they won't necessarily make that connection right off the bat.
Also, that's a pretty cool logo. Digging the '80s style.
What.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
They say "I use a Mac," "I use an Apple computer," or "I use Windows." Nobody ever says "I use a Microsoft system" or "I use Microsoft Windows." The only time I see the term "Microsoft" used frequently is when people refer to the Office suite. They often say "Microsoft Office" and "Microsoft Word."
So yes. In my experience, the "Windows" branding has much higher visibility than the company name itself. People know Microsoft makes Windows, but that's not how they think about it.
Apple, for the longest time, developed both the OS and the machines that they ran on. MS developed Windows then left the PC market to do whatever. No one says they "use an Apple system" either, because it just doesn't roll off the tongue. You don't need to add specifics to Windows because there are no other products like Windows (ie, OS) named Windows. On the other hand, there are multiple products that use "Office" so it does require the distinction. Again, for the longest time you could only use MacOS on an Apple-made computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
None of your :words: help support the claim that average joes don't make the connection that Windows is of Microsoft. Nor does it help the follow up claim that they "know" MS makes it, but that's not how they think about it.
None of the people I know outside of my tech-savvy circle think about Microsoft unless they pause for a second after mentioning a Microsoft product. They see that their computer runs Windows, or that they own an Xbox, and that's the end of it. They don't go "I love Microsoft's stuff!" They break it down by product. "I like Windows" or "I prefer the Xbox" are what come out. In contrast, the Apple users I know typically lump it all under "Apple stuff" or, more simply, "Apple."
Apple making its own hardware is what makes it easy for them to get their brand out there, especially when there is a giant icon representing the company on the back of every single item they sell. Microsoft has to try a little harder. Unfortunately for them, the company logo on their products is tiny and out of the way, but the product logo itself is prominently displayed.
- On the side of your console it says "XBOX 360" in huge type in three different spots, but "Microsoft" is only written with tiny font in the disclaimer sticker at the back.
- Windows says "Windows XP" in huge type with a small "Microsoft" above it, or "Starting Windows" with "(C) Microsoft Corporation" in smaller fond underneath.
- The Zune displays the company name in incredibly small font at the back as part of a copyright/trademark notice.
- The Office suite displays it in similar fashion to the older Windows logo.
My point? Their company brand visibility is low, while their product brand visibility is high. It's a byproduct of how the company is structured, which you can go read up on in your spare time if you want.
The only icon that the less tech-oriented people I know seem to immediately relate back to Microsoft is the Windows flag. To relate back to the thread and my original statement, I think that this logo redesign, which now includes that flag (tiles?), is part of Microsoft's effort to actually try to increase the company's mindshare by building an image for itself, especially with the younger generations, because they really don't have one beyond being "the guys that make Windows." Since they are trying to become major players in other spaces, they can't afford to keep going with such a narrow typecast.
Did you...just change your avatar <:raise:>? Your posts are no longer branded as BMW ~:maddowns:~! And your logo's size out performs that of your username's so now I'll associate your posts as Corvette posts!
I'M ON TO YOU!
But they are using the freaking Windows logo. If I ask anyone non tech savvy, and show them the 4 panels, and mention its a logo that represents a technology, they will think Windows...yet you say Microsoft are trying to branch out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warsaw
I just find it funny, that they are trying to branch out, but trick consumers by using a very familiar look. It even uses the same font.
Like I said, even removing peoples perception what company they are going on. The spacing is awful and what the hell is the F and the T joined?
It's the exact same avatar I used at one point :iamafag:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kornman00
They're using the same colors the old Windows quasi-panels used, but they're not using the Windows logo (both the old and new have different window paneling styles, the MS panel is made of plain old squares). I do believe MS started off with just making OSes, so I'm pretty sure they're safe with taking their flagship product and integrating it into their new MS logo (especially if we go with Warsaw McGraw's claim of avg joes not consciously making the connection that Windows is of MS). Oh and then there's the fact that it's just a simple fucking four square dealo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Limited
It's really no different from the way Google uses the same four colors in their Google logo and then those same colors in their Chrome logo's circle jazz
this is more tech-oriented, and not entirely about W8, but still about W8: http://rcecafe.net/?p=225
DON'T TOUCH MY CHEESE, NIGGA!
It looks like Microsoft took the cheese and put it on that over-sized mousetrap known as Windows 8.
I chuckled.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkHalcyon
They forgot Halo http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/31/mi...-on-windows-8/
lol @iStunt2
Fuck yeah!
Stardock says: "Fuck you Microsoft!" and fixes their GUI for them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...;v=SdW9tSXK3fM
Help us Stardock, you are only hope!
Look at that genius hybrid metro menu. Click the start button (which they added) and it brings up a resized metro intereface that can be custom resized or completely done away with. Why are these people not being contracted by Microsoft to just design the UI for them?
Eat it Win8 lovers.
I might consider windows 8 with that.
Lol, Stardock to the rescue as usual.
Also, a better fix forMetroModernUI would be to split it into the Start screen and the Work screen. The former would be your fun tiles and shit, while the latter is a work space that houses your applications and has your jump lists on the bottom with your window functions (close, minimize) in the lower corner. What's killing the current version is them being hell-bent on full-screen applications only.
E: Oh, and its reliance on the Microsoft Marketplac--er--Store.
Goddamn, this ad is almost as wanky as Apples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8mSckyoAMHg
And like the Zune it looks like it'll never end up here :<
I no longer wish to computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timo
ever again.
ever.
I hope they bring back Windows Key functionality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
Also, changing the start button? Bitch plz. That's leet hax 101.
What would be extra awesome is if the apps windows were on a completely different monitor.
Out of all the startmenu hacks I've seen, I personally like the hack to use the Windows 7 Explorer.exe in W8.
http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/35189-Windows-7-explorer-for-Windows-8
It allows each user to choose which explorer they use. When using the W7 explorer, you don't have any of the Metro/ModernUI crap (unless you execute the W8 Explorer.exe)
I tried an older beta of Start8, but the fact that it tries to work alongside Metro/ModernUI rather than abolish it, I didn't like it. (My college has MSDNAA, so we've all had access to legitimate copies of the final build since forever. All of the fools that have upgraded not thinking about it, have been pleased with the W7 explorer hack. They really should of just used VMs like me trying to get a build that actually works ok.)
wait what WAIT WHAT THEY SERIOUSLY GOT THE W7 EXPLORER IN W8?
The problem is these hacks are still absolutely no excuse for Windows 8. You should never have to depend on third party tools to achieve basic function out of your computer.
In the case of Start8, it adds an extra peice of software to the machine which runs as a background process and becomes yet another liability requiring constant updates. It also doesn't help that it needs to be manually deployed and can't support the Windows group policies.
The W7 start menu hack for Windows 8 is a "better" long-term solution since it actually adds the code back, but since it alters the Windows 8 explorer, you will probably run into Windows Update issues. And it's even worse that this is a third party hack with no support.
It's official. We don't know anything about computers anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timo
After reading 30 pages of this all I can say is just wow.
If you buy a PC from a big retailer (lol!) and get Win8 installed on it, this may be useful so you don't have to reinstall Windows 7, but otherwise there's no point in upgrading to Windows 8 since this hack makes it pretty much the same as Win7.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirby_422
Am I the only one here that's really not bugged about the new interface?
DIE TIMO.
timo you ought to get virtualbox, get the demo if it's still available and try it out for yourself~~
I only say it cuz I love you bro.
How often do you really use the start menu, once everything is setup? I've got half a dozen things pinned at the top I always use, which could easily be made into a group in the metro interface. You can still hit the start button and start searching immediately as well, which is what I use to get to any app that isn't pinned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit
I used it for a little while and didn't see what the fuss was all about :sQuote:
Originally Posted by t3h m00kz
I actually think the Start screen is a fantastic idea.