Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [AT] Why Microsoft has made developers horrified about coding for Windows 8
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[AT] Why Microsoft has made developers horrified about coding for Windows 8 - Page 6

post #51 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Rabbit View Post
You have got to be kidding me. Another reason for me to despise Microsoft.
Hey, as long as you don't buy a mac its cool with me haha
post #52 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle7412 View Post
I skipped vista and I can skip windows 8
Outside of being tortured at work, I managed to skip all versions until 98SE, oh wait, I had to use that because of work.

Win7 is fine by me. If Win8 is all about HTML5 and Java, then it will be a skip, just like MS BOB was a skip for the crowd that didn't want a GUI for Windows.

In fact, with every announcement about Win8, I get the feeling that it will be about as bad as BOB was...
post #53 of 93
Oh look, full screen apps. I wonder who they copied that idea from? yet again....
Oh look, their new developer platform: Javascript and HTML5. Since when did IE care about standards or compatibility? Oh that's right, when Google came along eclipsing their limelight.

To all the people praising Vista SP7 as the holy grail, just because it's a half-decent OS for once in a decade, that doesn't make it a great OS. You still have the Registry, DLL and OCX non-sense and you still have to reinstall Windows every so often which has been somehow accepted as the norm without any objections. Why put up with the headaches of Windows and convoluted functionality just because it's the lesser of the evil compared to a previous version? It's like putting up with a high maintenance gf that's overweight and ugly. Why? Because you're afraid of change?
Edited by PoopaScoopa - 6/13/11 at 12:53pm
post #54 of 93
These new APIs don't scare me...what scares is that all of the old ones will still be there as well.
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
2600K @ 4.7GHz Asus P8P67 B3 GTX 580 EVGA Hydro Copper 2 GTX 580 EVGA  
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
4x4GB G.Skill Ripjaws bunch of 'em Blu-Ray For movies Windows 8.1 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
24.4" Hans G HH251 X2 Yamakasi DS270  Blah 1000watt Super Flower 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Built into Desk Microsoft SideWinder X8 Comfy one... Creative Extreme Gamer 
  hide details  
Reply
post #55 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majestic_Lizard View Post
Actually, the Windows 7 kernel is significantly optimized compared to Vista, although they are very similar. Many benchmarks prove this and there is a very good reason. The development of Vista was problematic due to a large portion of its early development being devoted to WINFS, which was dropped. This is why Windows 7 boots and shuts down two are three times faster than Vista did on any machine I have installed both operating systems on. It also loads applications faster. Additionally, I've never once seen a BSOD with Windows 7 (unless it was related to a hardware problem), but BSOD on fresh Vista installations was significantly more frequent than with Windows 7.
The difference is, there is far less difference between Vista and Windows 7 then there are between other minor updates. Many of the files haven't even changed. There is a UI tweak and a core update. That's basically it. UAC was changed/altered, but that's not a factor since everyone who runs Vista/7 turns it off.

BTW, I've had BSOD's on my Windows 7 machine as well.

protip: Fully updated Vista doesn't suffer the problems pre-SP1 Vista had. It's not a different operating system.


Quote:
As you are aware, Windows 7 (blackcomb) is based on the original concept that was supposed to succeed XP (it was cancelled, then uncancelled). Vista (longhorn) was originally intended to be dramatically different than XP. An executive decided to nuke NTFS and replace it with WINFS. Sanity eventually gained a foothold and about two years into development of WINFS, it was instead abandoned. This resulted in Windows Vista effectively being rushed through development in half the time needed. Consequently, it was not well optimized.
Yes, and Vista has since received optimizations that make it work amazingly well. Windows 7 is not a different beast.


Quote:
I personally know a Microsoft developer who has expressed the above view (good chance he would lose his job if he said that publicly). According to the developers, the problem with Vista (Longhorn) is that the project was highjacked and this caused them to waste a lot of time. When they finally had a working proof-of-concept for Vista they had to rush it through development resulting in a product that was superior to XP in many ways, but not well optimized.
XP was received just as horribly as Vista for the first year or two. In fact, I don't know any Vista/7 users that had their systems completely trashed... a number of people even had hard drives killed, just from installing a service pack... people are so forgetful of the past.

So far, after having been a first adopter of XP (as well as almost every version of windows since 2.1 came out), Vista has been more stable and reliable as XP had for me. The exception being the file transfer issues pre-SP1 Vista had.


Quote:
Imagine being in a project where you are told to build a subcompact automobile, then being told after you have assembled the suspension, frame, and engine, that you need to change it to an SUV. Then, after re-building the frame and suspension, you are told that you need to change it back to a subcompact. Vista was that subcompact. Windows 7 is what the subcompact would have been like if the development had been allowed to progress from start to finish unmolested.
Bad analogy. If Vista and Windows 7 were cars. They would be almost identical, except the Windows 7 car would have a slightly better ECU and a different dashboard.


Quote:
Vista and Windows 7 are more alike than different, but they are simply not the same operating system and it is a mistake to believe they are. It is important to note such past developments when considering what might happen with Windows 8. Often dramatic changes in Windows operating systems never materialize or are hampered by interference.
Windows 7 core update should have been in a service pack. However, Vista has a bad reputation, and MS wanted to make more money so that's why you have Windows 7.

Don't believe me? Every idiot who says Vista sucks and Windows 7 is awesome is pretty much proof.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mofoo View Post
Vista also crashed a lot due to the massive overhaul in the driver architecture. All hardware vendors had to rewrite their drivers for it, including nVida/ATI - who really took their sweet time. They're actually responsible for a large majority of BSOD's in Vista.
You cannot blame MS for that either - the overhaul was required and vendors had YEARS to comply during their betas.
Except for pre-SP1 Vista, I've had Ultimate x64 running... the longest was about 6 months of uptime before restarting because I was updating drivers. This was on the original instal of pre-SP Vista that was over 3 years old.

With the exception of pre-SP Vista, overall, it's been more stable than XP Pro.

To be honest though, if the support had not dropped and if MS weren't scammers (i.e. leaving out functionality on older versions), I'd probably still be running W2k.

Windows 2000 was by far the best OS (least bloatware and most stable) that Microsoft had ever released. I had W2k uptime of over 1 year. XP would always crash between 3-6 months... Vista seems to be a little more stable.
Edited by xenophobe - 6/13/11 at 1:22pm
The Big Ugly 2.5
(14 items)
 
Spectre x360
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7 2600k Asus P8P67 B3 MSI GTX 980 GTX 580 (physx) 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
16GB Corsair XMS3 1600 Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Barracuda 7200.12 1TB Hitachi 7K3000 2TB 
Optical DriveOSMonitorPower
Pioneer BDR-206D W7 Pro x64 Dell U3415W Corsair AX850 
CaseMouse
Corsair 600T Logitech G500 
CPURAMHard DriveOS
i7 6500U 8GB DDL3L 256GB M.2  Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardCase
2560 x 1440 Touchscreen Awesome! Aluminum Billet 
  hide details  
Reply
The Big Ugly 2.5
(14 items)
 
Spectre x360
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel i7 2600k Asus P8P67 B3 MSI GTX 980 GTX 580 (physx) 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
16GB Corsair XMS3 1600 Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Barracuda 7200.12 1TB Hitachi 7K3000 2TB 
Optical DriveOSMonitorPower
Pioneer BDR-206D W7 Pro x64 Dell U3415W Corsair AX850 
CaseMouse
Corsair 600T Logitech G500 
CPURAMHard DriveOS
i7 6500U 8GB DDL3L 256GB M.2  Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardCase
2560 x 1440 Touchscreen Awesome! Aluminum Billet 
  hide details  
Reply
post #56 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Penguin View Post
AMD better start making better video drivers for Linux fast.
Valve, where's Steam for Linux?
^^^ THIS has been a long time needed...

I'd like to see the cloud take it to Linux, ditch the hasbeens M$!
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
post #57 of 93
You see this everytime a new version of any widely used system comes out. They said DirectX would be difficult and time consuming... Anyway only thing I would say to the developers is adapt or go stand in the unemployment line.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3930k @ stock  Asus P9x79ws EVGA 670 + EVGA 560 Ti 16gb Gskill 2133 @ 1.6v 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 830 256Gb + 3.75 Tb ya Win8 5 - 24'' Dell U2412M 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
nope... entirely overrated Seasonic 1250w p182 of course... 
Mouse Pad
no 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 3930k @ stock  Asus P9x79ws EVGA 670 + EVGA 560 Ti 16gb Gskill 2133 @ 1.6v 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Samsung 830 256Gb + 3.75 Tb ya Win8 5 - 24'' Dell U2412M 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
nope... entirely overrated Seasonic 1250w p182 of course... 
Mouse Pad
no 
  hide details  
Reply
post #58 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Licht View Post
The point I am making is that web based applications never match the quality of full blown apps. Not even close. Anyone who has actually worked in the industry will tell you the same. Yeah they have a lot of advantages, but the user experience is poor.
User experience doesn't matter anymore, it's all about shoving more touch controls in.

Plus you have to toss in something about cloud and/or html5+javascript.

Fads > features.
    
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
2500k P8P67 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 22" phillips 
KeyboardPowerMouseMouse Pad
Cheap Logitech Antec Earthwatts 650W Razer Deathadder Razer eXactMat 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
2500k P8P67 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 22" phillips 
KeyboardPowerMouseMouse Pad
Cheap Logitech Antec Earthwatts 650W Razer Deathadder Razer eXactMat 
  hide details  
Reply
post #59 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoopaScoopa View Post
Oh look, full screen apps. I wonder who they copied that idea from? yet again....
Oh look, their new developer platform: Javascript and HTML5. Since when did IE care about standards or compatibility? Oh that's right, when Google came along eclipsing their limelight.

To all the people praising Vista SP7 as the holy grail, just because it's a half-decent OS for once in a decade, that doesn't make it a great OS. You still have the Registry, DLL and OCX non-sense and you still have to reinstall Windows every so often which has been somehow accepted as the norm without any objections. Why put up with the headaches of Windows and convoluted functionality just because it's the lesser of the evil compared to a previous version? It's like putting up with a high maintenance gf that's overweight and ugly. Why? Because you're afraid of change?
Because it's still way way better than the alternatives.
    
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
2500k P8P67 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 22" phillips 
KeyboardPowerMouseMouse Pad
Cheap Logitech Antec Earthwatts 650W Razer Deathadder Razer eXactMat 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardOSMonitor
2500k P8P67 Windows 7 Ultimate x64 22" phillips 
KeyboardPowerMouseMouse Pad
Cheap Logitech Antec Earthwatts 650W Razer Deathadder Razer eXactMat 
  hide details  
Reply
post #60 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleiro View Post
You see this everytime a new version of any widely used system comes out. They said DirectX would be difficult and time consuming... Anyway only thing I would say to the developers is adapt or go stand in the unemployment line.

Or we'll just not develop for Windows 8 and find a different platform or stay with Windows 7.

The only people this will hurt is Microsoft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by serge2k View Post
Because it's still way way better than the alternatives.
No, it really isn't.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [AT] Why Microsoft has made developers horrified about coding for Windows 8