Ah, true! I completely forgot about that.

But then I went from Windows '98 to XP, so I never got to experience it. Same with my jump from XP to Windows 7.

Edit: Well, whenever they start beta sign-ups, count me in. I'm very interested in giving this a try.

When it comes to testing the OS, it's best to wait for the Release Candidate (RC) version, which is essentially the last step of Beta. Its aim is to give people an idea of what the retail version of the OS will be like, unlike the Beta which is primarily about testing things (which will be broken). The Release Candidate also requires no beta signup and is free to all.

My old laptop ran Vista, and the Windows 7 Release Candidate came out. What I did was partition my hard drive (essentially segment a portion of data away from the main bulk and trick the computer into thinking you have an additional hard drive). Then I downloaded the Release Candidate installer (which is designed to be burned to a DVD and then booted off of), and chose to install it onto my new empty partition. A long install later and it's done.

A word of caution though, drivers will often have compatibility issues when you are using an unreleased OS. They need to be updated to work properly. Sometimes you'll be fine running them under a sort of compatibility mode, but other things may simply not work. I had to wait a while for video drivers to come out for my card (and was stuck in low-resolution limbo until it happened) and the scroll function on my trackpad never worked again after that point. There is also no official support. If you have a problem, you can't call Microsoft or check any official help guides. Your only source of help would be from people who are currently using the OS themselves and know a thing or two about common problems and how to fix them.

After the OS is actually released, you're usually given a long period of time before the Release Candidate stops working. I believe 7 got an entire year. You have that long to buy the official version, and it will tell you ahead of time when the deadline is. When you finally do get the official version, simply delete the partition, stick the actual install disc in, and choose update. My laptop running Vista was able to update directly to 7 and it let me keep everything I still had on it (so you don't need to do a clean install).

If you do get into the Beta for it though, take advantage and report bugs. For the past two OS releases (Vista and 7) people who beta tested the OS and reported enough bugs/solutions received a copy of the finished OS for free.



At its most basic, x64 is a version of the OS that allows larger strings of certain data to be handled. What this means for most people is that they can use more RAM. x32 can only handle 32 bits of data, which limits the amount of RAM your computer can actually use to 4 Gigabytes. 64-bit operating systems, on the other hand have a potential roof well above most people's reasonable amount of RAM. In theory, you can get about 128GB of RAM. Windows 7 Ultimate lists 192 GB (but only 16 for Home Premium) If you want to use more than 4 (which most respectable gaming PC's would want), x64 is the way to go. Plus x64 remains compatible with 32-bit applications, though not with 16-bit, one of the few advantages x32 has over x64. You should be fine though, I don't even know if there are very many 16-bit applications left. Are there any?

The downside is that the advantage of more RAM isn't as useful without more 64-bit programs. You can use more programs in a 64-bit OS, but if they aren't written for 64-bit no single program can take advantage of all the RAM at your disposal. Fortunately enough 64-bit programs are becoming more standard. Unfortunately, not so much with games (as people will see with Skyrim)

I don't even have a phone (let alone one that requires a version of Windows [what the hell do people use phones for nowadays..?]), so maybe I'm the odd one out in thinking that a unified OS is a ridiculous idea.

As with all new Windows versions, I'll first ask: what can I do on the new version that I couldn't on the old?

Since the only valid answer is usually "DirectX," I'll probably be skipping every other version (XP - 7 - ...9?).

tsk-tsk.

a x64 version of an OS is nothing more than an OS that can fully utilize an x64 CPU, which is a CPU whose registers can hold a 64-bit integer.

Also x32 is not limited to 4 GB of RAM, but a low ceiling on addressable physical memory that can and has been extended.

64-bit OSes can address in theory up to 2⁶⁴ bytes (16 exabytes. an exabyte is a million terabytes) of physical memory, not a measly 128 GiB. Current limitations in x86-64, though are set to merely 2⁴⁸ bytes (256 terabytes) with a hard limit in x64-86 of 2⁵² bytes.

x64 does NOT remain compatible with either 32-bit or 16 bit. The current implementation of 64-bit widely adopted is merely an extension of the instruction set of x86 (hence x86-64 being the sign for it). Other implementations of 64-bit do not maintain their backwards compatibility such as IA-64. Finally the only reason Windows loses 16-bit compatibility is because of the removal of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_DOS_machine due to it not functioning any longer without true virtualization.

Someone knows their stuff much more than I do.

The ceilings for memory created in 64-bit are so far the result of the OS itself. Vista had 128 GB, 7 lists 192, and even those vary between certain editions. It shouldn't matter though, because that theoretical ceiling won't be hit for a long time by the average consumer. Supercomputers, maybe. But most people don't own those.

You are correct though, I just have some basic knowledge of the stuff, enough to know how to build a computer and leave it at that.

What makes you think that someone is going to release a desktop computer that runs on a ARM chip?

There are few last century classic Doom editing tools that i can't use with 64bit 7 anymore, and some ancient games that i can't play anymore either. But that's why i have XP installed on a separate harddrive.

It'd be cheap, you can slap the "Windows" sticker on it, and sell lots of copies to people who shop at Wallmart and buy it for how cheap it is.

First of all, any applications developed for W8 will work on ALL W8 versions. It doesn't matter if you have ARM hardware. (EDIT: Actually that depends on the developer and the development tools available)

I think that Microsoft's decision to create one OS for all platforms is a great move. It's extremely frustrating to have to deal with multiple operating systems and platforms. I want to be able to use the same apps on all my devices without having to download a "tablet version" and a "desktop version" and then a "mobile version".

This is also great news for developers since they'll be able to create desktop and mobile apps simultaneously.

W8 will be great for gaming too. I read an interview with some Microsoft employee who talked about how they wanted to "get back into" the gaming market.

That said, I'm not surprised everyone seems to hate W8. People always seem to hate Microsoft even though they've been releasing nothing but AMAZING software over the past few years.

Free software. Did I mention that? Yes Microsoft has been releasing ton of free software lately and everything I've tried so far is really really good.

I too like the sound of one OS across all devices. Assuming software doesn't get screwed over for it that is.

Would it, in theory, be possible to run a game on a Windows 8 tablet? Assuming the hardware would be up to it.

Microsoft always releases a good, then bad operating system. I think they've just proven its law lol.

yes

of course not many games have support for touch interaction though :shrug:

I hardly think calling Windows 8 a bad OS based solely on UI is fair.

Edit: @Exorince Sweet. Can't some tablets use plug and play mice and keyboards?

I don't see why not :shrug:

Only if compiled againt the ARM instruction set or runs JIT like C#, or in some VM like Java. Nothing Microsoft can do about making x86 compiled software run on ARM. Yes, any application developed for W8 and compiled against both architectures will work on both, but that's just stating the obvious. The problem is all the legacy software written in C that is not compiled against ARM. You won't be able to use any of that.


All you need to do to maintain that is keep the same API calls between the OSes and ship compilers that compile against both x86 (and/or x86-64) and ARM and that way you don't get all the crud from the one platform that has absolutely no place on the other. They are different platforms and have different needs/requirements/abilities. One-size-fits-all just makes crappy code. Remember the Unix philosophy: Do one thing and do it well. Microsoft just took buckshot to this practice.


Microsoft doesn't release free software. Microsoft releases freeware, shared-source (open-source software with restrictions that it can only be used on Windows), and a very small amount of open source software.

Am I the only one who actually thinks the Metro style looks quite nice (considering tablets/phones)? I like it. Can't say how well I'd like it on a PC though. Think I'll stick with 7.

No, I rather like it as well.

I also really like the looks of it for the PC too.

Windows 8 seems like nothing but a downgrade to me. There is no use I would have for an OS that is on multiple platforms. I don't have a "smart" phone, I don't have a tablet, and I no reason to use either.

I'll stick with Windows 7, thanks. Of course, this is coming from a guy that would still be using XP if his previous computer didn't bomb.

Assuming it's an intel tablet (they won't be. Windows tablets are going to be overwhelmingly ARM), then there will be no problem playing games on it. -Some- future games will run on ARM too, but besides those designed for tablets, not many. Basically: no Crysis or Skyrim on tablets. No legacy software on them at all really (and legacy software will be defined as all software released up to Windows 8 as well as a good chunk of software released afterwards especially in the form of downloadable software)


There will be two games:

Games designed for tablets and PC games. Most PC games probably won't even run on tablets since I doubt any serious game developer will compile against ARM as it'd just be a waste, but assuming your tablet is Intel-based, then the touch screen will still work as a mouse, just multitouch won't work. Obviously games designed for the tablet will work regardless.

How does that horrible interface work with a mouse? It looks like they've just taken a mobile phone or console interface, made it uglier, and then claimed it will work for touch screens and mice. Urg. Why does everything need to be so big? I don't want such a stupid interface on my desktop, and I'd barely even want it on my phone. I think I might have to stick with Windows 7, even if I was really hoping that the next OS might fix some of Windows 7's problems.

I'd like to know too. Perhaps scrolling up and down with the mouse wheel makes it go left/right? Or pushing the cursor to the side of the screen makes it move?

Well I just found out that you can switch back to a classic look when you like which looks like Windows 7, so I think Microsoft hae just wasted their time with that new interface, in my view at least. I certainly can't see myself using it.

Love how closed-minded a lot of people are with this UI.

Makes you wonder why companies try to innovate and make their product better at all.

Not that just changing the UI is innovating by default of course.

Have you ever actually used Windows for real work? As in in a production envornment for an office? The new UI is all fine and dandy for tablets (I honestly believe that), but the combination of tablets and desktops was just an utter mistake. It bloats the OS, obfuscates the OS from work productivity, and will create many user problems (compatibility, user confusion, accidental triggers, etc)

No matter how you slice, tablets were designed for consumption. The new UI owes itself heavily for consumption, but an office desktop is designed to produce. This is like a kick in the butt for productivity.

To roll back time to the last time Microsoft decided to combine some of their OS lines:

Years back MS decided that the distinction in their codebase for workstation and server was superflourous (except their High Performance Computing line). Standard Windows Server now shares the same codebase as the desktop version, just with a few extra doodads and a few things unlocked.

fast forward to today. I've seen such wonderful things as adobe reader 7 installed on Windows Servers. And what's that? Why is Windows Update telling me that there is a bugfix for Silverlight on server 2008?

This voices my opinion perfectly.

It looks pretty bad.