Windows 8 why?

Discussion in 'Windows 8' started by pyrros aatu, Oct 4, 2011.

  1. 100

    100 MDL Expert

    May 17, 2011
    1,347
    1,575
    60
    Windows Server 8 is a major release though, and really does have a lot of new stuff (Hyper-V v3 (+replication, live migration, clustering improvements), hardware-independent NIC teaming, Claims-based access control, data deduplication, storage pools, SMB 2.2, uninstallable GUI, more PowerShell manageability, etc.).
    Many of these don't require Windows 8 on workstations, so many corporate users will probably skip this release for their workstations. Server 8 is what will really add a lot to Windows-based environments (for network infrastructure), more than Windows 8 on PCs.
     
  2. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    13,081
    13,977
    340
    These are true points. To buy some new server licenses and to migrate to w8 server is an option and the costs are straightforward with little effort to realize.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. PGHammer

    PGHammer MDL Senior Member

    Oct 14, 2011
    369
    78
    10
    I was one of that large wave of testers that came in with Windows 95 beta 2 (the infamous build 224), and before that, I was an OS/2 tester/developer. Before Windows 95 came along, if a user (never mind a developer) wanted to get serious with 32-bit applications, OS/2 and NT were the only options. While OS/2 had hardware requirements little greater (in fact, no greater) than Windows 3.x, it lacked support for most productivity applications. Windows NT was cursed with higher hardware requirements than either OS/2 or Windows 3.x. (Never mind that either also cost more than Windows 3.x.) Windows 95, even in beta form, supported all the hardware (and most of the software) that Windows 3.x - and, surprisingly, Windows NT - did (one of my favorite "say WHAT" tricks was to run Windows NT applications in Windows 95 - completely untouched) without the NT hardware tax.

    Windows 98 was okay - but really came into its own with 98 SE. 98 SE would also be the last non-NT Microsoft OS I would run on my own hardware - I avoided ME like the plague. (I ran - and recommended - Windows 2000 Professional instead.)

    The problem with Vista wasn't Microsoft - but poor support from OEMs/IHVs. (I migrated both myself and Mom to Vista - from XP - without a quibble.) The reality of Windows 7 is, in point of fact, that it is basically Vista with better hardware support - there aren't that many new features in 7 compared to Vista, and most of them are, in fact, window-dressing. (While it's really good and usable window-dressing - Superbar, I am referring to you - it's still window-dressing.)

    Now to Windows 8. Metro is, in fact, more window-dressing - consider that traditional applications and games don't break, even with Metro as the chosen UI. (That little-reported-on fact - that there are close to zero issues with existing applications with the WDP - is monstrous compared to previous developer previews of Microsoft OSes. It also shows that Microsoft paid a great deal of attention to application compatibility - even with the new window-dressing.)
    There are some new features outside of Metro (like the much improved Task Manager and disk-image handling compared to previous versions of Windows); however, like Metro itself, even they largely fall into the window-dressing category.

    That is why I see the majority of complaints about Metro as like complaining that the window shades are the wrong color.