Thoughts and Opinions on Windows 8.1

I've been using Windows 8.1 for a few months now, after opting to use the new operating system for my new PC, despite my initial hesitation. Since the launch of Windows 8, there has been a lot of negative feedback from the community, primarily from desktop users feeling left out in the cold after Microsoft's shift in focus to a mobile/touch centric UI. With the release of Windows 8.1, Microsoft made some concessions towards desktop users and with the imminent release of the 8.1 Update, it appears as though they'll be making a lot more. So, before the 8.1 Update is released, I thought I should finally get around to publishing my experiences with Windows 8.1 as it currently stands.

Modern UI

Let's get this out of the way first. The Modern UI (née Metro) seems to be the biggest bugbear for those who have criticised the OS. I'm not going to lie, there are some real problems I've found when working with the UI daily, but I'll highlight some positives first.

• I prefer the welcome/log in screen in Windows 8 to previous versions. The full screen graphic that changes depending on the theme of the last user to have logged in is a nice touch.
• When first reading about Windows 8, I thought I would hate the Start Screen, however I actually find it's a more visually pleasing way to have quick access to applications I use regularly. For programs that aren't pinned to it, all I need to do is start typing the name until it appears in the search results on the right hand side of the screen, which is actually very similar to how I used the "classic" start menu in Windows 7. The live tiles make for a great idling screen, especially after I was introduced to the Steam Tiles application; I can have live tiles for my favourite games, displaying my achievements. However, I don't spend a great deal of time looking at it when I use the machine; most of my time is spent on the desktop.
  
  
  
• I like the visual design of the Modern UI and the OS, for example, I find the Facebook application much more pleasant to use than the website; it's far less cluttered! Outside of the Modern UI (using the traditional desktop environment) I think the styling of UI elements (like window borders) also feels a lot cleaner.

Now, the negative aspects, and I apologise if I'm repeating a lot of the criticisms levied against the OS:

• There is a distinct clash between the Modern UI and the traditional desktop environment, not just in style, but user experience too. For example, some actions on the desktop will result in a Modern application launching and taking over the whole screen, which is very disconcerting.
• Following on from the last point, it's frustrating that Modern apps can only be used either in full screen or half a screen. This sort of interface restriction would probably feel right at home on a touch screen device, but it's a poor alternative to a truly windowed application. It's just about acceptable on my three displays, where I can relegate the Facebook or Evernote applications to half of one screen, but I could imagine working with a single display that this would get tiring very quickly.
• The "hot corners" for accessing the "Charms" menu or the task switcher were initially a nightmare to use with multiple displays. For example, if I wanted to access the Charms menu on the middle display, I have to move the mouse pointer into the top right hand corner. However, I would occasionally overshoot it, resulting in the activation of the task switcher on the right display, which then locks the pointer to that screen. While I don't use the hot corners all that often, I have discovered a reliable method for accessing them when necessary: approaching the corner by first moving the mouse pointer to the top of the relevant screen, then horizontally across. So far, this has worked every time I've tried it.
• Shutting down the system is problem area that has been slightly improved with Windows 8.1. With the original release of Windows 8, you had to use the Settings Charms menu to access the shutdown/restart options. With the return of the Start button in 8.1, you are able to right click it to access a raft of useful shortcuts, shutting down and restarting included. Of course, it's worth mentioning that with modern PCs, it has been possible for some time now to initiate a graceful shut down via the power button on the case thanks to ACPI.

I have managed to get used to the foibles mentioned above, even discovering workarounds or new ways to interface with the system in some cases, but I do believe I'm a special case (or so I've been told... heh). I have worked with many different GUIs over the years (Windows 3.11 through 8, OS X, Gnome 2 and 3, Unity, KDE, XFCE; the list goes on), so I feel I'm more suited to adapting to strange new UIs. However, I'm not sure about the rest of the population. Maybe the update to Windows 8.1 that's due in the coming months will help; there are supposedly changes to the UI that allow Modern applications to better coexist with the Desktop.

OS Functionality and Behaviour

Now I'll move on to other points of interest, both in terms of OS features and some issues I've experienced relating to my specific set up.

• I really like the new Task Manager; it's far superior to previous iterations. CPU, memory, disk and network usage are visible, with elements being highlighted by changing colours to depict different levels of utilisation (red being high). In addition, the process list forms more of a tree, to visualise the different processes spawned by each application running.
  
  
  
• I was impressed with how many devices the OS recognised before I had installed any drivers myself. Specifically, having the network adaptor working is extremely useful. This might just have been because Asus built the motherboard using well supported NIC, but either way it made getting the rest of the system set up much easier.
• There's so much more out-of-the-box functionality; for example: more audio and video codecs/formats are supported and there's a built in PDF reader. However, all the support is achieved via Modern applications, so by default when I click a supported file, the relevant Modern application is launched. As mentioned before, this takes over an entire screen, which is a jarring experience if you just want to preview a photo. I have since switched the file associations so that this doesn't happen; for example using the old Windows Photo Viewer instead of the newer Photos app.
• I had some issues with the operating system's Fast Boot feature. I noticed that the Event Viewer had some "unexpected shutdown" errors, despite my always having properly shut down the computer. This culminated in the OS eventually deciding to perform a run of chkdsk at boot, which was the final straw. I ended up disabling Windows 8's "Fast Startup" feature and the offending log entries disappeared. I can't say I've noticed much of a difference to boot times either.
• Search, in it's default configuration isn't particularly helpful. Previously, in Windows 7 you could search for applications, files and folders simply by accessing the Start menu and beginning to type; results would begin to appear the moment the first key was pressed. I haven't found a way to mimic this behaviour in Windows 8.1; the best I can do is simply to disable the Bing integration. Another problem I had with search was it doesn't seem to actually find any of my documents; I may have to tweak the indexing configuration, but I'm shocked that nothing ever appears.
• Microsoft need to work on the OS updates system. I always configure Windows to simply notify me about updates so I can download and install them at my convenience; the last thing you need while playing an FPS online is your system to start downloading, let alone install, updates! The problem I find in Windows 8.1 is the only time I'm notified of the updates is at the login screen; there is no little notification in the system tray on the desktop, nor any option to install them when I shut down my PC. This has resulted in me not applying critical updates for several days after release; not good. Other sources have informed me that if you have the operating system automatically apply updates, it will force a reboot with no option of delaying it, which would be far more frustrating experience. I feel like this would be easy enough to fix; all Microsoft would need to do is implement system tray notifications again.
• Windows backup has changed; there is no longer any way within the UI to schedule a system image backup. It is possible to manually create one, but scheduling requires a manual step to add the relevant command to "Scheduled Tasks".
• One of the great features of UNIX-based operating systems is the ease at which user data can be stored on a different file system to your operating system; you simply mount a volume at /home. In Windows, the simplest way to achieve a similar arrangement is to move the user data and symlink to it. It's worth noting that the "proper" method to move each individual user directory as it's created (e.g. C:\Users\peter_000) and not the top-level C:\Users directory; the latter can cause problems with system upgrades later on.
• After a reboot, the Corsair Link software failed to find my H80i, despite being connected to a powered USB port (via the NZXT IU01). After some searching, I found a guide suggesting some registry edits that would solve this issue. The problem appears to be related to new power management techniques Windows 8.1 tries to employ with connected USB devices. Sure enough, once I had followed the guide, I was able to manage my H80i again.
• During the installation of Steam, the progress indicator hung at "Creating Shortcut"; I was simply able to kill the installer and start Steam as normal.
• The utility I use for controlling my graphics card, Sapphire Trixx, will eventually crash after a few hours of running in the background. No error is thrown, it just becomes unresponsive, which results in Windows ending the process.

With all the points of contention I have with the OS, you might be surprised to hear I'm actually finding it an OK experience to work and play with. After I'd spent the time customising the Start Screen to my liking, installed all my necessary applications and switched my user account to drop me to the desktop at log in, it felt just as much a home to me as my Windows 7 environments do. I'm looking forward to the improvements that the 8.1 Update will bring; it seems to be addressing some of the issues I've outlined above with the Modern UI. I eagerly await the next Patch Tuesday!

Soldering On - The Future of the Desktop CPU

Back in November a slide was leaked to the press that detailed Intel's CPU road-map for the next couple of years. What made the leak so controversial was the suggested move away from the Land Grid Array (LGA) sockets currently used to seat processors. The slide seems to indicate that in 2014 a Ball Grid Array (BGA) mechanism would be used to directly mount Broadwell CPUs to the motherboard using solder.

Shortly after the leak, there were a flurry of articles posted online about the future of the (desktop) PC as we know it, which culminated in Intel making a statement to Maximum PC; essentially denying the move away from LGA packaging. In his article, Maximum PC's Deputy Editor Gordon Mah Ung made some good points around why it would be difficult for Intel, and the desktop PC industry as a whole to switch to BGA packaging. However, I feel that demand for the traditional desktop form factor has decreased significantly in the consumer marketplace and I felt that this recent insight into a possible future was worthy of a post.

Standards vs. Style

For literally decades now, the desktop pc form factor (specifically, the AT and ATX standards) has allowed people to design, build, upgrade and maintain their own system(s) using a slew of components produced by dozens of manufacturers. With the move towards smaller and more portable devices, we have seen the general consumer eschew this bulky device in favour of laptops and more recently, tablets and smartphones. Those consumers who do opt for a desktop system are often drawn towards all-in-one devices like the Apple iMac or HP Omni machines.

In many of these new, slimmer devices, the CPU is often attached directly to the motherboard or difficult to replace. In the case of the iMac, it appears you can upgrade the CPU, but the new processor can't deviate too much from the original CPU's TDP. This makes sense; Apple don't want consumers meddling with their systems' interiors, so why add support for other processors? For the most part, processors are not considered "upgradable" in slimmer/portable devices; people will just buy a whole new device when their existing one becomes too slow.

But it hasn't stopped at the CPU: in a quest to produce the most portable, slim and desirable devices manufacturers have been directly attaching other components to systems' motherboards, such as RAM and storage (solid-state NAND chips). This has produced some extremely thin machines, but at the expense of user-serviceability (in fact, it's produced some of the most environmentally unfriendly machines ever). Purchasing one of these machine is akin to buying a phone or tablet; you need to ensure the system's specs will be sufficient for the entire life cycle of the machine. I think this is a bit unfair, considering most people upgrade their phones yearly, whereas I would expect a laptop purchase to last at an absolute minimum of three years (I actually have a seven year old laptop at the heart of my CCTV system).

The End is Nigh?

Given the trend of smartphone/tablet SoCs slowly absorbing more functionality and portable computers becoming harder to maintain and upgrade, I felt comfortable knowing that my trusty (yes, and big and bulky) desktop would continue to provide me with the upgradable, customisable and truly personal computer. That was, until the slide was leaked to the press and all the speculation started!

It was while listening to the Anandtech podcast (and later reading the Maximum PC article) that things were put into perspective. On the show, the possibility was raised that Broadwell may only be intended for mobile devices and that desktop users would have to wait until the following major architectural change (a "tock" in Intel's release cadance). It was even pointed out that Intel has set a precedent for this already with the move from the Nehalem to Sandy Bridge; no six-core, high-end part was released to replace the older equivalent, which is why so many people delayed upgrading their Gulftown-based systems (i7-970,980X,990X) until Sandy Bridge-E was announced. If you wanted an eight-core part that using the newer architecture, it would be necessary to splash out on a Xeon system; a much more expensive proposition.

For the enthusiast market, it has been argued that processor upgrades are a rarity. Given Intel's socket lifecycle, upgrading one's PC will usually involve a new motherboard purchase anyway, to accommodate a new CPU architecture. While this is true, I know many people who bought/built a system and had to settle for a lower spec CPU, but later on were able to afford a higher-end part because of the naturally falling price of product lines as they age. But not only that, there are two other issues that myself and many others in the system builder community have concerns over:

• Repairing/replacing damaged components - the obvious issue. If I have an expensive CPU attached to a motherboard, it's not easy to replace either one in the event of hardware failure. A motherboard has a lot of additional components; should I need to replace it, why should I be lumbered with the cost of replacing a (perfectly good) CPU?
  
  
  
• High end motherboards paired high-end CPUs/confusing product line-ups - it's not clear how this integrated CPU approach will work from a buyer's perspective. Will motherboard manufacturers attempt to produce a variant of each board, each with a different CPU, or will they simply put the high end CPUs on the high end boards? The former would probably be costly to the manufacturer and confusing for the consumer, while the latter will reduce consumer choice; currently, it's possible to pair a some high-end motherboard with a lower end CPU, taking advantage of the board's features (additional SATA and USB ports, RAID, Wifi, etc.) to create a useful workstation or home-server.

Brave New World

As more and more motherboard functionality is absorbed by the CPU, it will be interesting to see how long the above two issues cause problems for system builders. It's pretty clear that the ATX form factor isn't a priority any more. Without AMD providing competition in the enthusiast/performance market, Intel can focus on the battle with ARM-based systems.

If the ATX form factor is slowly becoming extinct, will we see an alternative for the hardware enthusiast? Personally, I hope so and there seems to have been a rise in popularity of Micro-ATX and Mini-ITX systems, which is promising. These tend to require more forward planning and are more complex to build in; sometimes requiring case modifications, especially if the build uses higher end components or liquid-cooling solutions.

Something I found particularly interesting in the Anandtech podcast was the mention of discussions had with industry players (before this recent leak) who had revealed a possible future: boards with CPU, RAM, etc. directly attached, producing modular systems. This would fall in line with Intel's Next Unit of Computing (NUC) initiative and so perhaps the future for home desktops are consumer blade systems; upgrading or replacing a computing module in your home server would be as simple as removing a NUC. I could see specialised NUCs being developed for gaming or GPU compute, high I/O requirements, etc., which would allow hardware enthusiasts to customise their builds to their needs.

Maybe the outlook isn't as bleak as I first imagined... Still, I might brush up on my soldering skills and invest in re-flowing equipment, just to be on the safe side!

Patently Stupid

I'm not a supporter of software patents; many companies have been granted a patent for a vague concept or idea, which is then used to bring legal cases against companies who may have inadvertently violated it. Take Apple's recently granted ICT ruling against HTC, in particular the "linkify" functionality. The patent in question covers "a system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data".

Now, I believe there are two things wrong with this patent. First, the vague nature of the functionality described. But, secondly, hasn't this functionality been present in phones for some time? I remember receiving an SMS on my old mobile phone (pre-smartphone), the device being able to recognise a telephone number in the message and being given the option to perform additional actions using it.

Despite the legal minefield surrounding software patents, I always thought that patents on hardware (computer, or otherwise) were fair game, until I read this article on ZDNet about the injunction Apple managed to win against Samsung, preventing sale of their Galaxy tablet.

Looking at the drawings submitted with the patent, I can't help but agree with the article; it looks as though Apple have tried to patent the tablet form factor itself! Now, given that there have been tablet PCs around long before the (very successful) iPad, surely that patent application should never have been accepted. However, further research around the case led me to this article describing the European Community Design. By submitting a vague Community Design, Apple were easily able to obtain an injunction against Samsung.

Fortunately, Samsung were able to overturn the decision (however, the device remains banned in Germany), but Apple have now managed to secure a ban on the Galaxy S phones being sold in Europe. I don't believe Apple are playing fairly and are simply trying to eliminate the competition through legal proceedings rather than with a superior product. I don't believe that anyone would mistakenly buy a Samsung tablet instead of an iPad if that's what they actually wanted.

Some people may side with Apple, citing a need for the company to protect their intellectual property and chastise me Apple is on the offensive when there are plenty of other companies holding their own patent battles. To bring a bit of balance to the post, here's an example where Apple is being sued for infringing an "instant-on" patent. I feel that this case is even worse, because the suing company, Operating Systems Solutions, appear to simply be a patent troll.

I realise that this topic has been covered before, and in far more depth than I have. However, I felt compelled to publish my opinion on the matter following the ban of Samsung's tablet. Patents were originally intended to help companies and individuals reap a reward for their inventions, but now I believe that they are having a negative effect on innovation as individuals and small companies don't have the budget to fight patent lawsuits. I do believe in being able to defend a product, or invention, but the current seems open to abuse and needs reform. I think a bit of healthy competition is good for consumers and that if companies spent leon court battles and more on R&D, we would have even better devices and products to choose from. However, it would appear the situation in the EU may deteriorate with the possible introduction of unitary patents.

Just to finish with a bit of humour, here's a Dilbert strip that I feel perfectly illustrates the current state of the system, which was published while I was composing this post: