Windows 9 - 8K Display Ready.

[RelentlessAF]

-snip-

I get where you are coming from but this isn't really in any way "pushing the envelope" or really challenging anyone to do anything. It's just adding higher resolution icons and text fonts. All for a tech very limited people will have by the time Windows 10 or whatever they will call it needs to come out. It definitely seems like they are only doing it "because they can" when they could've pushed more intensive features like you talked about with nvidia and AMD. Maybe they could've made a faster experience by utilizing higher RAM counts so that you can't just get by with 2GB of RAM and expect to be using Windows 9. There's nothing saying we need a full conversion to every new OS Microsoft releases. Why not make it enthusiast grade? Or at least a version of the OS that only those who put a lot of blood sweat and tears into their hardware can use and leave the lightweight version for the average consumer. These are just some examples of things they could've done differently rather than support a technology almost no one will have.

[Techhog]

Why are people son angry at ms?

You complain about high res scaling on win 7/8/8.1 so, ms are just making sure that it will support every monitor, i dont see the issue here. The OS isn't even technically announced yet yet, so its not like they're just sitting on their asses working on pointless features when they're on a tight deadline. If they rushed it you'd complain, so just shut up.

It's because Windows 8/8.1 and the other recent articles about Windows 9 have soured opinions on Windows, so people want to hate Windows 9 to convince themselves to switch to OS X or Linux.

[RH00D]

I get where you are coming from but this isn't really in any way "pushing the envelope" or really challenging anyone to do anything. It's just adding higher resolution icons and text fonts. All for a tech very limited people will have by the time Windows 10 or whatever they will call it needs to come out. It definitely seems like they are only doing it "because they can" when they could've pushed more intensive features like you talked about with nvidia and AMD. Maybe they could've made a faster experience by utilizing higher RAM counts so that you can't just get by with 2GB of RAM and expect to be using Windows 9. There's nothing saying we need a full conversion to every new OS Microsoft releases. Why not make it enthusiast grade? Or at least a version of the OS that only those who put a lot of blood sweat and tears into their hardware can use and leave the lightweight version for the average consumer. These are just some examples of things they could've done differently rather than support a technology almost no one will have.

Windows 8.1 can already run with 1 GB RAM, they made a ton of optimizations in Windows 8.x. You also seem to be forgetting that now that they have done it once, it lays the groundwork for all future Windows version to have this support. They will never again have to build out 8K support in Windows because now it is already done. Windows XP supported 2 physical processors and up to 128 GB RAM, but I don't see anyone saying it was a waste of time to do that?

 

Where you are incorrect is that you assume such a feature as 8K support would only be used by regular end-users. But there are lots of researchers, scientists, graphics professionals, etc. that would be using an 8K monitor. Regular people won't be able to afford them for a while but I am sure there are imaging professionals at companies like Canon/Nikon/Adobe, or major universities that will be getting there hands on 8K displays as soon as they are readily available (if they haven't already) and will want an OS that can support them.

[RelentlessAF]

Windows 8.1 can already run with 1 GB RAM, they made a ton of optimizations in Windows 8.x. You also seem to be forgetting that now that they have done it once, it lays the groundwork for all future Windows version to have this support. They will never again have to build out 8K support in Windows because now it is already done. Windows XP supported 2 physical processors and up to 128 GB RAM, but I don't see anyone saying it was a waste of time to do that?

 

Where you are incorrect is that you assume such a feature as 8K support would only be used by regular end-users. But there are lots of researchers, scientists, graphics professionals, etc. that would be using an 8K monitor. Regular people won't be able to afford them for a while but I am sure there are imaging professionals at companies like Canon/Nikon/Adobe, or major universities that will be getting there hands on 8K displays as soon as they are readily available (if they haven't already) and will want an OS that can support them.

You misunderstood my point about the RAM, the point was to not make it run on 2GB or less RAM and to make it more resource hungry and create an overall "enthusiast" grade experience. The way 8 and 8.1 are designed is not "enthusiast" grade and they could be a lot better if they could utilize everything at their disposal.

 

You also make it seem like "8K support" is a vital thing. Third-party applications will not have 8K support, games might but that's what games do. I'm not just talking about the general consumer. 8K is rediculously expensive and serves no vital purpose. Where does 4K fall short for those researchers and scientists that they would NEED 8K in anyway? Sure there's more screen real-estate but you can always get more monitors. I know someone who uses 8 monitors. Are you telling me 8 4K monitors wouldn't be enough? The point being you are trying to justify an unnecessary addition to a product that very few will ever use. They could've added it down the line, hell this could've been an update Case and point that this was a complete waste of time to implement.

[Techhog]

You misunderstood my point about the RAM, the point was to not make it run on 2GB or less RAM and to make it more resource hungry and create an overall "enthusiast" grade experience. The way 8 and 8.1 are designed is not "enthusiast" grade and they could be a lot better if they could utilize everything at their disposal.

 

You also make it seem like "8K support" is a vital thing. Third-party applications will not have 8K support, games might but that's what games do. I'm not just talking about the general consumer. 8K is rediculously expensive and serves no vital purpose. Where does 4K fall short for those researchers and scientists that they would NEED 8K in anyway? Sure there's more screen real-estate but you can always get more monitors. I know someone who uses 8 monitors. Are you telling me 8 4K monitors wouldn't be enough? The point being you are trying to justify an unnecessary addition to a product that very few will ever use. They could've added it down the line, hell this could've been an update Case and point that this was a complete waste of time to implement.

Yes, make an OS which can only run well on mid-range and up systems. What could possibly go wrong? Other than, you know, everything.

 

This is getting ridiculous. A well optimized OS can both utilize the resources of high-end systems and scale down for low-end systems. Linux, OS X, iOS (other than RAM because Apple is cheap and lazy), newer versions of Android, and, yes, Windows 8 all strive for this and do it to some degree.

[GoodBytes]

You also make it seem like "8K support" is a vital thing. Third-party applications will not have 8K support, games might but that's what games do. I'm not just talking about the general consumer. 8K is rediculously expensive and serves no vital purpose. Where does 4K fall short for those researchers and scientists that they would NEED 8K in anyway? Sure there's more screen real-estate but you can always get more monitors. I know someone who uses 8 monitors. Are you telling me 8 4K monitors wouldn't be enough? The point being you are trying to justify an unnecessary addition to a product that very few will ever use. They could've added it down the line, hell this could've been an update Case and point that this was a complete waste of time to implement.

It's not about real-estate per se, it is about precision. It could be used in medical field, where doctors can now analyses even better with higher resolution imaging technology cancel cells, for example. Already we have monitors that can 1.07 billion shades of gray, not colors. The color processor embedded in them can only do gray scale, and this is for more accuracy, and these displays are in use the medical field.

Example, the EIZO RadiForce RX850 31inch - http://www.eizo.com/global/products/radiforce/rx850/index.html#tab01

A true 4K display (4096 x 2160 - 17:9 aspect ratio). (older model was 38inch, same resolution. They other monitors, like a 2K monitor in 22inch form like the GX540 model)

Also, EIZO is working in releasing a 10MP (or 8K) display. They have added the filter when you search for a monitor, so I would assume it is coming soon.

[othertomperson]

Why the need to optimize for 8K? 1080p is still the standard resolution and I wouldn't even call 1440p mainstream, not to mention 4k which is still extremely new. How long do they intent to keep 9 as the latest OS?

 

768p was standard for an extremely long time. So why bother making anything for 1080p? Most people didn't use it -- screw those who did.

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

lol win8 aint even ready for 3k and there out here preppin for 8k, idiots...

How are they idiots for trying to fix something? If anything that makes them smarter.

[Swndlr]

How are they idiots for trying to fix something? If anything that makes them smarter.

theyre looking into the future too much. fix what we use now, not what we will use in 10 years.

[APrettyCoolWalrus]

theyre looking into the future too much. fix what we use now, not what we will use in 10 years.

Looking into the future means they are idiotic?

List of idiots:

Nvidia

AMD

Microsoft

Valve

Apple

Samsung

One Plus

Razer

Logitech

Cooler Master

Corsair

MSI

Gigabyte

Every company on earth

Every human on earth

 

Every one of these companies have made mistakes, so they want future products to be even better.

[Swndlr]

Looking into the future means they are idiotic?

List of idiots:

Nvidia

AMD

Microsoft

Valve

Apple

Samsung

One Plus

Razer

Logitech

Cooler Master

Corsair

MSI

Gigabyte

Every company on earth

Every human on earth

 

Every one of these companies have made mistakes, so they want future products to be even better.

most of these are completely irrelevant to the fact that windows 8 and 8.1 were just left to be shit and now theyre planning for 8k when theres no point, THAT can wait, why leave whats broken now broken. i wanna see when 8k actually become mainstream let alone 4k... ill be married with kids by the time 8k is mainstreamed and what theyre doing now actually matters. i never said companies shouldnt look to the future, they need to. but what microsoft is doing with 8k and windows 9 is pointless to me, just wait.

[GoodBytes]

theyre looking into the future too much. fix what we use now, not what we will use in 10 years.

You actually have to do both. Which actually it looks like what Windows 9 is doing.

Else you are obsolete before your product is released.

Nvidia and AMD GPUs have numerous bugs, issues and limitations in them. And I don't mean driver level. I mean GPU architecture wise. These are usually found once the product is released, and obviously can't be fixed by distance. Now, the reason why you don't see them, is because devs work around it (other engine they use does that work), or simply they are not affected ()I mean it has bugs, but it's not a bug and issue fest). Every generation they work on that, and also, work on new technologies. If not, If say, Nvidia works only on bug and issue fixing. Well, first of all, there will always be bugs and issues discovered to fix, and there is no performance increase. Would you pay 300$ a new GPU, with the exact same performance, because it has these fixes and improvement that doesn't affect you, as you don't notice as an end user, as the devs of the game works around it or not affected?

[Swndlr]

You actually have to do both. Which actually it looks like what Windows 9 is doing.

Else you are obsolete before your product is released.

Nvidia and AMD GPUs have numerous bugs, issues and limitations in them. And I don't mean driver level. I mean GPU architecture wise. These are usually found once the product is released, and obviously can't be fixed by distance. Now, the reason why you don't see them, is because devs work around it (other engine they use does that work), or simply they are not affected ()I mean it has bugs, but it's not a bug and issue fest). Every generation they work on that, and also, work on new technologies. If not, If say, Nvidia works only on bug and issue fixing. Well, first of all, there will always be bugs and issues discovered to fix, and there is no performance increase. Would you pay 300$ a new GPU, with the exact same performance, because it has these fixes and improvement that doesn't affect you, as you don't notice as an end user, as the devs of the game works around it or not affected?

if something isnt broken, dont fix it. if something needs to be fixed, a company as big as microsoft should get their money filled pockets on the problem fast, not leave it in the dust like they did win8.

[GoodBytes]

most of these are completely irrelevant to the fact that windows 8 and 8.1 were just left to be shit and now theyre planning for 8k when theres no point, THAT can wait, why leave whats broken now broken. i wanna see when 8k actually become mainstream let alone 4k... ill be married with kids by the time 8k is mainstreamed and what theyre doing now actually matters. i never said companies shouldnt look to the future, they need to. but what microsoft is doing with 8k and windows 9 is pointless to me, just wait.

Oh ok I get you. But is it really broken? per se. I mean, I like the new layout of Windows 8, and it works fine on all my systems, even my desktop.

But lets say it has issues, and one was mentioned (task bar location with hot corners), and I do have some, say: no per metro application volume control like you have with desktop applications, to name just 1 among my list. How do I know it wasn't fixed already in Windows 9, or in the works when Windows 9 preview will be released, and added into a future preview release?

[Swndlr]

Oh ok I get you. But is it really broken? per se. I mean, I like the new layout of Windows 8, and it works fine on all my systems, even my desktop.

But lets say it has issues, and one was mentioned (task bar location with hot corners), and I do have some, say: no per metro application volume control like you have with desktop applications, to name just 1 among my list. How do I know it wasn't fixed already in Windows 9, or in the works when Windows 9 preview will be released, and added into a future preview release?

im talking about how windows performs at a high res. not 1080 and not even 1440 (those work fine) but when you get to anything higher than that, it sucks and it isnt just windows, plenty of third party devs are also to blame... now that i think of it its worse on their part, theyre the ones who arent doing their jobs.

[GoodBytes]

if something isnt broken, dont fix it. if something needs to be fixed, a company as big as microsoft should get their money filled pockets on the problem fast, not leave it in the dust like they did win8.

Sadly, throwing money at it, is not the problem. Sometimes, it simply takes time, which includes development time, experimentation, and also, sometimes you can't. There is a compromise that needs to be done, and it a decision that the company had taken and stick with it. For example, Nvidia picked 28nm process for their new Maxwell GPU, and not smaller. Going smaller, would probably would have lead to increase cost, in both manufacturing, and new added challenges in fixing the problems, such as leakage, and increase static power requirements (power requirements for having the circuit in "power off" mode, ie: not doing anything, but not idle state ('cause idle actually does something, such as rendering what you are seeing on the screen)) of the GPU, not to mention, further delays, including manufacturing delay due to manufacturing problem as doing it smaller is a new process, and isn't perfected yet.. something that can only be done, by doing mass production to find the issues.

[Swndlr]

Sadly, throwing money at it, is not the problem. Sometimes, it simply takes time, which includes development time, experimentation, and also, sometimes you can't. There is a compromise that needs to be done, and it a decision that the company had taken and stick with it. For example, Nvidia picked 28nm process for their new Maxwell GPU, and not smaller. Going smaller, would probably would have lead to increase cost, in both manufacturing, and new added challenges in fixing the problems, such as leakage, and increase static power requirements (power requirements for having the circuit in "power off" mode, ie: not doing anything, but not idle state ('cause idle actually does something, such as rendering what you are seeing on the screen)) of the GPU, not to mention, further delays, including manufacturing delay due to manufacturing problem as doing it smaller is a new process, and isn't perfected yet.. something that can only be done, by doing mass production to find the issues.

i hate technology

[GoodBytes]

im talking about how windows performs at a high res. not 1080 and not even 1440 (those work fine) but when you get to anything higher than that, it sucks and it isnt just windows, plenty of third party devs are also to blame... now that i think of it its worse on their part, theyre the ones who arent doing their jobs.

Oh ok. You are saying that how some area of Windows isn't high DPI aware, like other parts of Windows, under higher DPI setting from teh default. Yes. I agree with you.

But, they could be reason for this:

-> Lack of time, as more energy was put somewhere else, for example

-> Maybe they planned in dropping these panel for new, ideally, better ones. So why invest money on something you are about to throw at the bin. It's like an old car. You plan to replace it next year, yet your... I don't know. foam in the seats is starting to dry (very old car). While it works, and does the job, and you know you can actually safely drive the car for a year, do you still throw money at it to replace the seats?

Of course, all I am doing is speculation on possibilities. I don't think Microsoft went and said: Yea yea DPI-aware everything, but on purpose lets skip on these set of things, and start doing and now lets start doing an evil laugh while curling their mustache with their fingers, is basically all I am saying.

And what if they don't end up replacing them, and make them high-DPI aware. Well My guess, is that the initial decision was to move it in PC Settings, but maybe they decided that was not the way to go after wall, as the market has changed, and as we can see now, tablets sales have slowed down, and the majority of number of people aren't really using their tablets for productivity purposes, just as an up close TV, or play something (game or video) to pass the time for long trips, whether be traveling or public transport. Of course, I am not an analysis so I could be complete wrong on that.

[LukaP]

most of these are completely irrelevant to the fact that windows 8 and 8.1 were just left to be shit and now theyre planning for 8k when theres no point, THAT can wait, why leave whats broken now broken. i wanna see when 8k actually become mainstream let alone 4k... ill be married with kids by the time 8k is mainstreamed and what theyre doing now actually matters. i never said companies shouldnt look to the future, they need to. but what microsoft is doing with 8k and windows 9 is pointless to me, just wait.

give me ONE extremly broken thing in 8.1 that wont be adressed by 9. if you can find one that majority of enthusiasts care about, i will commend you

[Swndlr]

give me ONE extremly broken thing in 8.1 that wont be adressed by 9. if you can find one that majority of enthusiasts care about, i will commend you

option to not use metro ui, scaling for high res (never fixed, for windows OR 3rd party stuff), noticeably laggy aspects when doin random things, taskbar is never the same (relates back to metro ui), and they failed at making a simplistic style. now im kinda liking osx on my macbook air more

[LukaP]

option to not use metro ui, scaling for high res (never fixed, for windows OR 3rd party stuff), noticeably laggy aspects when doin random things, taskbar is never the same (relates back to metro ui), and they failed at making a simplistic style. now im kinda liking osx on my macbook air more

1) its rumoured for 9

2) *facepalm* this is what this fucking thread is about you brainless hater... (and 3rd party is up to the dev, the tools are there)

3) give an example because ive had none of that

4) styling is subjective plus they are bringing w7 elements back on 9

[Swndlr]

1) its rumoured for 9

2) *facepalm* this is what this fucking thread is about you brainless hater... (and 3rd party is up to the dev, the tools are there)

3) give an example because ive had none of that

4) styling is subjective plus they are bringing w7 elements back on 9

1) better happen or im gonna be pissed

2) ik, just read everything above this, we sorted it.

3) when using metro ui and light weight apps that shouldnt cause lag, cause lag.

4) they better or im gonna be pissed.

 

my main argument is that theyre getting ready for 8k win9 when theres still stuff with the current os thats in need of fixing.

[othertomperson]

most of these are completely irrelevant to the fact that windows 8 and 8.1 were just left to be shit and now theyre planning for 8k when theres no point, THAT can wait, why leave whats broken now broken. i wanna see when 8k actually become mainstream let alone 4k... ill be married with kids by the time 8k is mainstreamed and what theyre doing now actually matters. i never said companies shouldnt look to the future, they need to. but what microsoft is doing with 8k and windows 9 is pointless to me, just wait.

 

And one of the most broken aspects of Windows is the text scaling. It is THE thing preventing me from upgrading to a 4K monitor and getting a couple of 980s right now. It was the thing preventing me from getting a 4K screen and buying a couple of R9 290Xs months ago. Microsoft are looking for that one thing that would give me the kick I need to leave 7. Screw the Start Menu, give me text scaling. Windows Vista fixed 1080p. The fact that they're looking to fix this for resolutions beyond 4K so it works into the future is, to me, a very positive sign.

 

I don't even mind the Start Screen now I've used it a bit for work. I'm not forced to use the shitty picture viewer, I'm not forced to use the awful video viewer. And filling that screen with icons instead of cluttering the desktop and task bar actually isn't a bad solution.

[LukaP]

1) better happen or im gonna be pissed

2) ik, just read everything above this, we sorted it.

3) when using metro ui and light weight apps that shouldnt cause lag, cause lag.

4) they better or im gonna be pissed.

 

my main argument is that theyre getting ready for 8k win9 when theres still stuff with the current os thats in need of fixing.

and that stuff is getting fixed... and seriously, do you think allowing bigger size icons took them years of dev time? this is a 1 day job at most...

[ohJey]

People have been complaining about windows scaling for a long time (Linus does it ALL THE TIME)

 

It's especially a problem with laptops that have higher than 1080p displays

Linux figured out scaling before Microsoft, but I'm not really surprised