Right, I was just going off of basic hardware costs though. And yes, GTX 580's a VERY awesome. :wub:



Right, but think about doing that with a program and not needing a different version for the tablet or the PC. It wouldn't so much be the ability to just swipe the program over, more the connected compatibility. Granted with ARM stuffs that makes the whole compatibility thing damn near impossible for a log of things, but still, the future awaits!

All it is is data, you don't even need the same program, so as I said, having the same OS has literally nothing to do with it. It's just like a PDF file. You can open it on all platforms, just the slick transfer method doesn't exist. OS has nothing to do with it.

And ARM doesn't really stop it. ARM just kills "legacy" compatibility (see my previous definition of legacy). ARM requires the program be compiled against ARM, pretty simple to create installers for both ARM and Intel in modern IDEs.

Sorry for the double-post, but Microsoft cheated:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-01/tech/windows.8_1_windows-phone-windows-tablet-steven-sinofsky?_s=PM:TECH



And here's some people saying exactly what I was: it makes no sense to have your desktop OS on your tablet or your tablet stuff on your desktop http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/02/technology/windows_8/index.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZegWedG-jk4's another video.

Ah nothing has really stood out to me, I dislike how they are making the desktop version look more like a tablet. I think I will stick with 7 for the time being. (I mean I still have 2 XP servers running next to me, so I really dont see a big need to upgrade).

Ha ha, very funny. <_<

I find this very hard to believe.

First, you'd have to find a manufacturer that is actually willing to take the risk on a huge move like that.

Second, hardware is cheap enough as it is so personally I don't really see the point in something like this.

Thirdly, there are rumors swirling around of Microsoft being rather strict on the hardware that they're allowing OEMs to use in conjunction with their new OS, I'm sure that Microsoft are smart enough to plan ahead and can foresee the problems that would happen if they allowed OEMs to use ARM architecture. I don't think you're giving credit where credit is due.



I really think that you're jumping the gun in your opinion on this.

The video already shows the ability to switch between the UI and the default Windows, why don't you think that they'd allow you to turn it off altogether? The way I see it, Microsoft and trying to combine everything into the one OS for consistency, a pretty smart plan IMO. In essence, all it is is a UI, hardly a big deal. I think you're blowing it way out of proportion.


Watched 30 seconds of it. That [censored] was [censored] lame.

I didn't say is was a Windows 8 video .

Microsoft's own words are that it won't be disableable. You can't disable the classic interface on tablets and you can't disable the tablet interface on desktops.

They also want people to use the new style, not the old: "Microsoft will ask developers to write software tailored to the new look."

Yeah. [censored] that.

Ah well the only reason I even use Windows is generally for gaming and some other tools (3DS Max, Unity engine, etc). Everything else I can do on Linux.

Link?

Looks like I'll continue to use XP. Vista is horrid.

I think it is vastly superior to the UI on Apple's mobile devices. I have an iPod touch and there's an iPad somewhere around my house not owned by me, and I can't say I care much for either of them. Metro looks very simplistic, innovative, and colorful as always against Apple's fascination with the color gray. It's a very useful interface for tablets and smartphones.

On a PC, however, I don't think a touch-first interface could be very useful or innovative. It seems like a step in the wrong direction. The whole point of having a PC is that you can use it however you like, yet the Metro interface seems like Microsoft telling its consumers that they should use their computers a certain way. As Defron put it, the interface promotes consumption. You browse the web. You view videos. You sort your pictures. You buy lightweight apps to pass the time. There's not much in terms of production value which is what businesses are looking for (businesses, mind you, are the biggest source of Windows sales). In fact, I found it rather hilarious that the one moment they showed something productive in that demonstration, it required jumping into the Windows 7 "ghetto" because it isn't designed to work with Metro. It was Office, no less, Microsoft's own product. And it doesn't even work with the interface that they want to be used for everything.

The only production program that I think a touch-first interface could benefit is Photoshop. If you write that primarily for the tablets, it could help artists by removing the medium through which you draw, the drawing tablets that lack screens. I can attest to the fact that it is easier to draw when you can see what you are drawing and where you are drawing. When you don't have a drawing tablet with a screen, it takes some time to learn how to assume where your hand is. And now these Windows tablets will simply be eliminating the need for an external tablet device.



I guess it will technically be 3 years by the time it actually hits shelves. The 3-year release cycle is actually pretty standard. Apple updates their OS about every 18 months, and popular Linux distributions are released in even shorter increments. In fact, XP is the single exception to the 3-year cycle. I guess it is still fresh in everyone's minds, and people assume often that Windows 7 was only released so quickly after Vista because Vista was bad. So in fact, if you even consider the 3-year cycle as what to expect from now on, Microsoft is still the slow turtle of OS releases. And don't even get me started on Web Browsers



It's nice to continue supporting the same features, but I hear that a lot of old code is simply in need of updating. Programs written back in the day that have simply gathered dust and become buried underneath newer code, and forgotten. I think it'd be nice to continue supporting as many features as you can, but a lot of people out there really want Microsoft to clean up a lot of the excess code they have (which could probably be streamlined if they put the effort in).



Get 7. It's really nice, and I recommend it to everyone. I suppose that's why people are upset right now, because Windows 8 threatens to ruin everything people liked about 7. Worse than going from XP to vista at least, because at least Windows 7 was good. XP, at this stage, is like an old prosttute - really ugly with age and full of viruses.

That comparison is pretty unfair, even to five dollar addict hokers .