
Under the hood of Windows 8, or why desktop users should upgrade from Windows 7 - evo_9
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/138177-under-the-hood-of-windows-8-or-why-desktop-users-should-upgrade-from-windows-7
======
knowtheory
A meta-comment:

I'm really pleased to see an article like this at the top of HN. It's
informative and side-steps both the marketing bullshit about the metro
interface and all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that metro has
engendered.

More like this please.

~~~
batgaijin
No no no no no. If Linux people had to put up with crazy shitstorms over Gnome
3 and Unity, Metro most certainly is going to get it's fair share as well.

~~~
tjoff
Difference is that you are not even supposed to use metro on your workstation
and that you still have the best window manager on the market alongside metro.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Gnome 3 or Unity. They seriously
believe that you'd want that for everything.

~~~
drivebyacct2
>the best window manager on the market alongside metro

I'm sorry, but are you kidding me?

~~~
emeraldd
There's one feature that keeps windows out of the running for me that almost
every X Windows manager has in some form or another. Multiple desktops (not
multiple monitors). I know there was an XP powertoy that sort of did it for
windows but it ran slower than dirt on any hardware I had available. Without
that, I can't help but see the Windows WM as hobbled.

~~~
R_Edward
Maybe this should be addressed elsewhere, but I wonder what you see as the
benefit of multiple desktops. I've dabbled with them on occasion, and could
never really see the point. Maybe my workstyle just doesn't fit well with it,
and maybe I need to be more organized and/or disciplined. Obviously many, many
people do like the capability, and I wonder what I'm missing.

~~~
freehunter
My best use case for multiple desktops is to have my fun stuff on one desktop
and my work stuff on another. When the desktop flips, so does my mind. Also,
when the boss walks by it's easy to hide HN and move to work stuff.

~~~
tesseractive
Other examples:

Hide away your email and other interruptions until you're explicitly ready to
go look at them. Out of sight, out of mind.

Multiple projects. I have a legacy app I support and a new-development project
I spend most of my time on. I can spread the work for each of these out across
multiple windows on multiple desktops, and switch between them when I'm ready
to context-switch. When I do, everything is laid out exactly the way I want
it.

I'm back on Windows for now, but great multiple desktop support is the thing I
miss most from a Linux desktop.

------
learc83
Whenever someone talks about Windows 8, the question that pops up in my mind
is: why include metro in the PC version?

Why would I use anything but the Desktop mode? I can already make apps
fullscreen if I want, but I definitely don't want to be limited to only
fullscreen mode.

So what advantage does Metro have for a desktop user?

~~~
muuh-gnu
> why include metro in the PC version?

To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the
interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user
acceptance on their own.

> Why would I use anything but the Desktop mode?

Because the start menu will be removed to force you to switch to metro to
start desktop applications. You will use it (and get familiar with it) whether
you want it or not.

> So what advantage does Metro have for a desktop user?

Nobody claimed any such advantage in the first place.

~~~
freehunter
_To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the
interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user
acceptance on their own._

FUD.

 _Because the start menu will be removed to force you to switch to metro to
start desktop applications. You will use it (and get familiar with it) whether
you want it or not._

FUD.

 _Nobody claimed any such advantage in the first place._

Incorrect.

Edit - While you're downvoting me, I'd like to point out the statements that I
quoted from the parent. They're a slippery slope argument at best, and
patently false at the worst. There is no indication that Microsoft will be
removing the desktop. There's no indication that Microsoft is trying to
unconscionably leverage their desktop monopoly into the mobile world via
Windows (any more than any other company hopes to). And yes, people have
claimed (and I think successfully) that Metro is useful for end users. Ask
yourself if you agree with his statements, and then if they're backed up by
any actual facts. I believe he's spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt just
to settle a personal vendetta.

~~~
JohnsonB
>To leverage the Desktop monopoly to force users to get familiar with the
interface of Microsofts mobile offerings, which had no success to gain user
acceptance on their own.

>FUD.

I'm not sure how anyone could consider that FUD. There is pretty much no other
justification for this metro/desktop mashup possible. I've never even heard
pro-ms bloggers talk about one. Why else would they do away completely with
the start menu for desktop use and force the start screen? It's certainly not
a superior experience for desktop use. Additionally, you didn't provide an
argument to support your "FUD" assertion.

~~~
ax
> There is pretty much no other justification for this metro/desktop mashup
> possible.

There are many, but one compelling reason is having the best of both worlds.
You may disagree on whether it's possible or not, but that is the goal: two
usage modes in one device.

> Why else would they do away completely with the start menu for desktop use
> and force the start screen?

Because it's better [1].

(I am an employee but these are entirely my own opinions and experiences)

[1] [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-
on-...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/11/reflecting-on-your-
comments-on-the-start-screen.aspx)

~~~
eropple
> There are many, but one compelling reason is having the best of both worlds.
> You may disagree on whether it's possible or not, but that is the goal: two
> usage modes in one device.

With respect: I don't believe them when they say it and I don't believe your
rehashing of it either. I find "we need to get people using this so they don't
regard our mobile offerings as crap" to have much more of the ring of truth. I
am of the mind that if your stated reason was actually the reason, there'd be
a way to opt out of it. (Unless this is a fairly thoughtless attempt to mimic
the Apple "this is what we're doing" mindset, which sort of hinges upon having
a certain amount of taste. I don't believe this to be the case.)

> Because it's better [1].

I don't agree, and yes, I've used it. The conceit is junk. My desktop isn't a
tablet. I can, as shocking as this may sound, multitask. I want to have
nothing to do with something that decides it needs to take over my primary
monitor (on which I may be doing other things while I call up Start search--
ex. I may be watching something in a VLC stay-on-top window) against my
wishes, and I refuse to be a party towards Microsoft's progression towards
making their (poor, developer-hostile[1]) app store the Only Game In Town.

[1] - Apple's is both of these things, too. I don't use it and I'm not
funneled towards a UI that doesn't let me go outside of it, though.

------
JeremyMorgan
This is the equivalent of a plain looking girl dying her hair some crazy
color.

Personally I don't understand this concept of forcing a clunky and strange UI
on people and having change just for the sake of change. Both suffer from huge
amounts of backlash, yet their creators stand by it, for one simple reason:
They have to change, so things don't appear stale. These interfaces aren't
better, they're just new.

It's really that simple, we've had 10 years of the same type of interface in
Windows, Linux and OSX and they need something new. Apple of course knows they
have something good with OSX and are unwilling to slap their users in the
face, and they generally don't fix what is broke.

~~~
B-Con
> Personally I don't understand this concept of forcing [...] on people and
> having change just for the sake of change

Welcome to development, where anything over 24 months is old news and needs to
be made different. Not better, just different.

It's kind of a plague in the industry. Things change just for the sake of it.
I'm all for changing to make things better, but a large sect of development
seems obsessed with new just because... new.

------
dested
"In Windows 8, Metro apps run on top of a new application architecture called
WinRT, which is a low-level set of APIs that run just above the Windows
kernel. WinRT is the Metro equivalent of Win32, which is the API that Desktop
apps use. "

Didnt we just read an article yesterday about how this isnt true? WinRT is
built on top of win32, not parallel.

~~~
manojlds
I trust Scott Hanselman - WinRT is built on top of Win32 -
[http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToCallWinRTAPIsInWindows8Fr...](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/HowToCallWinRTAPIsInWindows8FromCDesktopApplicationsWinRTDiagram.aspx)

Another blog that says the same -
[http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/sasha/archive/2011/09/15/...](http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/sasha/archive/2011/09/15/winrt-
and-net-in-windows-8.aspx)

~~~
reddiric
It's both. WinRT is an ABI as well as a set of tools. The WinRT API can be
implemented as wrappers around Win32 APIs (as would make sense for
functionality in the WinRT surface area that mirrored applicable functionality
in the Win32 surface area) or new code (as would make sense for new
functionality).

------
nemo1618
Neat, I've been using Win8 since the first preview was released and I still
learned some new tricks. File History, for instance, looks handy if you can
afford the storage space. And I wasn't aware you could refresh from a user-
created image; how exactly does it differ from a system restore though?

------
conradfr
MS say Windows 8 eliminates most reboots needed by OS upgrades. Great, but
didn't they already say that for Win7 ?

The new Task Manager looks great though, and the document history might be
proven to be useful.

I think I'll wait Windows 9 to upgrade my desktop & laptop.

~~~
freehunter
My main issue with Windows 8 updates is that, yeah it's nice that it tells you
when it needs to reboot for updates and when that is going to happen, but I
don't feel in control of it at all. I was taking a test online for a class,
and the notice popped up that it was going to reboot in 15 minutes. I
explicitly did not reboot before the test because I figured I could delay the
reboot. It didn't give me that option. I started flying through the test in
the hopes that I could finish in time. I didn't. Halfway through the test, the
PC reboots without ever giving me an option to make it wait.

There might be an option in the settings menu, but most time I _want_ it to
reboot automatically. Occasionally I would like to defer that for another 15
minutes.

~~~
joenathan
Windows 8 gives you three days from the time it installs an update and until
it forces a reboot, 3 days. If you don't like that then you have many options,
to say "I don't feel in control of it at all" is pretty ridiculous when you
have all these options <http://i.minus.com/i4uIsZYCj4oek.jpg>

~~~
wtallis
Any reboot the user did not authorize is effectively a system crash. It's
unplanned unwanted downtime. Forcing reboots is okay as a policy that can be
enabled in enterprise environments, but it really shouldn't be a default.

Windows 95 could run for 45 days before crashing. Out of the box, it looks
like Windows 8 won't be able to manage that feat, with Patch Tuesdays every
month.

~~~
joenathan
The user did authorize it by having automatic updates turned on. To use the
term crashing is disingenuous.

90% of the updates I have received haven't required a reboot.

Windows 8 also warns the user on the lock screen during the three days that a
reboot is necessary/impending like so [http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-
filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communit...](http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-
filesystemfile.ashx/__key/communityserver-blogs-components-
weblogfiles/00-00-01-29-43-metablogapi/2287.Windows_2D00_Update_2D00_message_2D00_shown_2D00_on_2D00_login_2D00_screen_5F00_78A502CE.png)

~~~
MiguelHudnandez
> The user did authorize it by having automatic updates turned on.

That is a tenuous description of "authorization." The user is asked once when
they set up their computer whether automatic updates should be enabled and the
downsides are not outlined. It is strongly "recommended."

On the plus side, Windows 8 is handling it much better.

~~~
joenathan
Also I didn't mention the updates that require reboots are only released once
a month.

From here [http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/11/14/minimizing-
res...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/11/14/minimizing-restarts-
after-automatic-updating-in-windows-update.aspx)

"WU will consolidate all the restarts in a month, synchronizing with the
monthly security release. This means that your PC will only restart when
security updates are installed and require a restart. With this improvement,
it does not matter when updates that require restarts are released in a month,
since these restarts will wait till the security release. Since security
updates are released in a single batch on the second Tuesday of every month,
you are then getting essentially one restart a month."

------
at-fates-hands
I hate to say it, but I'm becoming a but of a Windows FanBoi.

After using Win 8 for a few weeks now, this article confirmed some of the
things I was seeing, but not sure if it was just me seeing a new shiny toy or
it really was happening.

The two things I've already noticed are it starts up a lot faster, and comes
back from sleep a lot faster as well. It's also a lot more stable. Almost no
crashes when I was running several Adobe apps at the same time. I'm running
with 4GB RAM and was impressed with the performance. I can only imagine how
well it would run under a much faster processor and even more RAM. The real
winners will be desktop users for sure.

Losing the Start button was not a huge issue. I use an app launcher and just
hitting the WIN button takes you to the main metro screen with all your apps.
It's not hardly as confusing as everybody is crying about.

------
grannyg00se
One of the best windows 8 articles I've read to date. This actually has me
considering an upgrade for the anti-virus/malware as well as the faster boot,
leaner run-time, and Hyper-V included.

I'll definitely go check it out at some retailer to see if I think I can get
over (or minimize) the horrid multi-tile slate touchpad-friendly floating
window interface.

------
mertd
What is the deal with boot time as an OS metric? Is it really important to
boot 5 seconds faster than the previous iteration?

~~~
wtallis
It's an obvious measurable performance indicator that shouldn't get worse
without a very good explanation, and when it gets significantly better,
indicates that the developers are capable of optimizing _something_. Often
times, boot time improvements can be partially due to optimizations that help
during ordinary use as well.

------
robk
"Incidentally, if you want to perform a full “cold” boot (without the kernel
being hibernated), simply select Restart from the shutdown menu or run
shutdown /s /full /t 0."

Why should it require a command line statement with three switches to simply
shutdown?

~~~
Sumaso
Really? Can you explain why you would need to do a full cold boot?

~~~
archangel_one
Because something has gone wrong at a fairly low level of the OS and you want
to reboot to clear it out.

I know theoretically this _shouldn't_ happen, but it _does_ happen all the
time - I've not yet seen a system that I've really never ever needed to reboot
(excluding my toaster), and previous Windows have not been the least offenders
in this regard, so I have no confidence that Windows 8 will be the first where
I don't need it.

~~~
Dylan16807
>reboot to clear it out

That's what the reboot option is for. Can you explain the problem again?

~~~
archangel_one
The parent asked why you'd need to perform a full cold boot. I'm suggesting
that there are cases where you do.

~~~
Dylan16807
In context the parent asked why you would need a full cold boot _outside of
the Restart command_. The Restart option does a "full shutdown, followed by a
cold boot". There is no need to throw command line flags around, at least not
in the scenario you gave.

~~~
archangel_one
No he didn't, he just said "Really? Can you explain why you would need to do a
full cold boot?". The grandparent was talking about the command line flags as
an alternative, but neither my post nor the one I replied to were specifically
referring to doing it from the command line.

------
robomartin
From the article:

"By installing Windows 8, companies will implicitly force its employees to use
a new interface that could severely dent productivity. "

This is, by far, the biggest issue with Windows 8. And, at least for me, the
most confusing aspect of Microsoft's decision making process.

I would be surprised if ANY business with more than two employees willingly
shifts their PC's to Windows 8. Imagine having one hundred employees grind to
a halt due to the UI shift. Deadly.

I would really love to have the opportunity to hear from Microsoft on this
one. Why is it that we don't even have an option to disable Metro (or tablet
mode, or whatever they want to call it) on a desktop system? What was the
logic behind that decision, if any?

~~~
sliverstorm
It may actually turn out to be controllable via group policy. I swear you can
control just about anything with GP. So, enterprise may have that option.

------
Someone
So, who is right? Ars Technica claims WinRT runs on top of Win32
([http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/windows-8-and-
winrt-...](http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/windows-8-and-winrt-
everything-old-is-new-again/6/)), this text claims it runs just above the
kernel.

Also, completely unrelated: I hope that 'single keypress' for resetting your
PC to a blank slate is somewhat exaggerated. If it isn't, leaving your PC
alone for seconds becomes truly dangerous (yes, technically there is no
difference; giving anybody local access to your PC puts your files at risk,
but having a system make vandalism easier? I sure hope it asks for your
password first)

------
thomaslutz
I tried the final Windows8 (64bit) from DreamSpark in the latest VirtualBox
again today (after giving the RC a shot). There were improvements, but it was
slow as hell and finally crashed hard when I tried starting the Maps
application. And it was gone as fast as it was installed. Perhaps it is usable
after SP1, but it certainly isn't usable (for me) now.

~~~
SkyMarshal
You should try installing it directly the hardware of the same machine, I'd be
interested to know whether it's VirtualBox issue or something else.

~~~
thomaslutz
Unfortunately that is not an option right now, because it's my production
machine with Windows7 as a host and some other VMs currently running. The
machine should be powerful enough with a Quadcore i7 and 12GB RAM, though.
Perhaps it really is a VirtualBox issue.

------
gutyril
"...and unproven tablet market." that's so true.

~~~
code_duck
Maybe they thought italicizing it made it seem more realistic.

~~~
chc
Are you trying to suggest that the market for Windows tablets is well proven?

~~~
code_duck
I'm suggesting the market for tablets is well proven, as demonstrated by the
100 million plus Apple and Android tablets out there. I have no doubt that
were it well done, a Windows tablet could be a success. I'm not, of course,
saying I have any confidence that will ever happen.

------
joestringer
Anyone else familiar with "Arbitrary Free Protection"? 'cause it's only
turning up one search result for me.

------
magoon
Windows 8 is so good

