Want to boot directly to the Desktop?
Want your start button back?
Gather round kids...checkout and download Start8 made by Stardock(Sin of a Solar Empire, Demigod)
Stardock has a fantastic product there and I hope it makes them a lot of money. I used the trial and it was great, but I still prefer working with the default Start Menu.
Has anyone noticed that the "metro" up\down left\right arrows each within circles look almost the same as the ones from Need for Speed:Underground 2 or is it just me?
Arrows? Where the hell do you see those? Are you talking about the screenshots for app previews in the Store?
Here is a link to the similar arrows in NFS:U2
Last edited by maxdamage; 10-11-2012 at 02:02 AM.
Oh, now I see what you mean! Yes they do look the same actually. Very weird, wonder if anyone from EA will notice. Luckily its not trademarked or anything.
Steven Sinofsky steps down from Chief Developer role
Windows 8 has been out barely a month and there's a general positive mood from the public once they get a hands-on with the OS and the devices that power it. But despite that and the possibility that sales have been doing well in the first month since the launch, Steven Sinofsky, the brains behind the entire project, has stepped down from his role as Windows Chief Developer and is replaced by Tami Reller (formerly in charge of the Surface marketing team) and Julie Larson-Green, credited for the UI designs of Microsoft's Ribbon and the current look of Internet Explorer. Both report to Steve Ballmer and Sinofsky steps out of his role at the company with immediate effect.
Windows 7 won't receive DirectX 11.1 Update
Before there's a great clamouring among the gamers that this reeks of the same tactics employed by Microsoft to convince tons of people to migrate to Windows Vista, there's a legitimate reason why Windows 7 won't receive the update. Because Windows 8 is based on a new kernel and supports ARM architectures, it was necessary to revise the code so that battery life in portable devices like the Surface RT tablets with Nvidia's Tegra 3 would be conserved better when playing games or using apps that used DirectX calls. DirectX 11.1 adds support for graphics virtualisation, native 3D support, shader-based filters for video streams (minimising stuffer when a video is buffering) and changes to GPU utilisation to conserve battery life. Does that mean that all DirectX development on Windows 7 ends with version 11? We'll know when the next update is due to land, but for now there are no cosmetic or performance differences between the two, just an updated feature set.
I find the above statement a bunch of crap.
And this can't be applied to the Windows 7 architecture because.....? Don't bull**** us Microsoft. You're pulling the same shtick as you did with DX10 and Vista and immediately out-of-the-gate we had some enterprising individuals coding an emulator to get DX10 to work on XP. This is even less of an issue now because Windows 8 is mostly windows 7 with a new theme on top, compared to Vista vs. XP so I'm calling shenanigans.Because Windows 8 is based on a new kernel and supports ARM architectures, it was necessary to revise the code so that battery life in portable devices like the Surface RT tablets with Nvidia's Tegra 3 would be conserved better when playing games or using apps that used DirectX calls.
I'm going to stick with Win 7 and DX11 for as long as possible. God knows DX 9 has only been properly discontinued as a supported API by most major games this year so I should be good for a while without having to buy into your ****.
Also, DX10 never worked on XP in my experiments and I think the technical reason was sound for that as well - on XP you couldn't virtualise GPU memory and code preemption wasn't something either GPU manufacturer could achieve in their drivers. Microsoft could rewrite DX9 to feature these things but it would take years of work making it compatible with existing games and since they were already beginning development of Vista it would have been easier to just start with new code on a new platform. According to a FiringSquad interview with a developer, they were also anticipating the APU years before it was first released to the public so I think it turned out best for everyone involved. Those who wanted to stay with XP could do so for a considerable length of time until games moved to remove support for it.
Last edited by Wesley; 14-11-2012 at 12:22 PM.
Well, the fact (according to reports) that you can have Windows 7 and DX11 running on the same hardware as Windows 8 and DX11.1 makes me think that this isn't a hardware based architectural issue. (As it seems that DX11.1 will not just run on ARM based Windows 8 RT platforms but other on Windows 8 based systems as well.)
UPDATE: Windows 7 won't receive DirectX 11.1 Update
A slight change of plans regarding the update may have taken place internally in Microsoft's labs but this was never communicated to the public. Reports from Neowin, who delved into the release notes for Internet Explorer 10. A few features that are included in DirectX 11.1 do make it to the Windows 7 platform and are only available if the WDDM 1.1 graphics drivers are used and the Release Preview of Internet Explorer 10 is downloaded. As it turns out, there are also a few performance enhancements promised in DX11.1, but Microsoft hasn't noted whether this is for apps or games. In all accounts, both platforms run games equally well.
Microsoft's Big Hidden Windows 8 Feature: Built-In Advertising
Despite the fact that I've been using Windows 8 for the past three weeks, I somehow managed to overlook a rather stark feature in the OS: ads. No, we're not talking about ads cluttering up the desktop or login screen (thankfully), but rather ads that can be found inside of some Modern UI apps that Windows ships with. That includes Finance, Weather, Travel, News and so forth. Is it a problem? Let's tackle this from a couple of different angles.
The Modern UI (Metro) interface of Windows 8 essentially delivers a mobile experience on whatever device it's used on, be it a desktop, notebook or tablet. On previous mobile platforms, such as iOS and Android, seeing ads inside of free apps hasn't been uncommon. It's a way for the developer to get paid while allowing the user to have the app for free. That's where the first big difference comes in. While people can expect ads in a free app, no one expects ads in a piece of software that they just paid good money for. I actually can't think of another immediate example where a piece of paid software shows ads.
But there are other angles to look at this from. People subscribe to cable, and see ads. However, the difference there is that's a recurring subscription, and it could be assumed that without ads, cable fees would be much higher. Then there's the fact that the apps inside of the Modern UI are all Internet-capable, so in a sense, they all act like their own customized browser. We're used to seeing ads on websites, so is this really that different? It's hard to say, but again, as free services, that's to be expected.
Wasn't windows 7's ui designed to run with a touch screen which implies itself that it can run on tablets,etc...?I've seen ads for tablet pc's running windows 7 online so it win 7 should be able to run on arm processors...Will try to find the linkThe answer of just how wrong Microsoft is to cram advertisements in its commercial software will differ from person to person, I'm sure. Me, I'm not too bothered, but I can totally relate to anyone who is. From all I can tell, none of the ads are intrusive, and I appreciate that. As for them being in paid software, that doesn't bother me either because of that above fact. However, I am bothered by other aspects.
The biggest mistake here on Microsoft's behalf is that no one is made aware of these ads until they happen to stumble on them. No one is going to expect ads to be loaded in their paid-for OS, so a notification of that at first boot would be appreciated. Further, no one is given the option to disable them (though I'm sure it'd take little more than an editing of the hosts file). Finally, there's also the fact that these ads haven't decreased the price of the OS, else that'd be a point Microsoft would no doubt flaunt.
We can't talk about the inclusion of ads and not mention the "T" word: tracking. I haven't been able to find any information on whether or not Microsoft's tracking the ads you are clicking on, but if that is indeed the case, we'll find out soon enough. Unlike Windows 7 and earlier, your entire Windows 8 account can be tied to an e-mail account, so it would be rather easy for Microsoft to track things on a personal level - much like how Google does with its search engine, e-mail and so forth. This alone gives good reason to be concerned.
We'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Are you okay with Microsoft infusing the Modern UI with ads? Would you ever be interested in a less expensive version of Windows that was ad-supported?
Last edited by maxdamage; 16-11-2012 at 11:10 PM.
I'm not so sure I am against it. After all...
We don't get those adverts ^_^ Only applies to those in America and Canada. But I guess if you're looking at it from a "Free" standpoint then yes, ad-supported apps, even those made by Microsoft themselves, can be included. So long as they don't intrude and they don't track, putting them in is fine with me. I do believe these would be more seen in the Surface RT version though, having it in a desktop OS doesn't make sense.