In-Depth with the Windows 8 Consumer Preview
by Andrew Cunningham, Ryan Smith, Kristian Vättö & Jarred Walton on March 9, 2012 10:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Microsoft
- Operating Systems
- Windows
- Windows 8
Bitlocker drive encryption
The new Bitlocker is largely similar to the version included in Windows 7—it can be used to encrypt both internal hard drives and removable storage.The main difference is that Bitlocker will now offer to encrypt only the used portion of your hard disk, rather than the entire voume—as in Windows Vista and Windows 7, encrypting your laptop’s hard drive doesn’t require a TPM module, but it does work best with one. Bitlocker will also offer to save your hard drive’s recovery key to SkyDrive.
I'm really hoping that Windows 8's emphasis on security and mobile computing devices means that Bitlocker is extended to more Windows editions—in both Vista and 7, it was available only in the top-tier Ultimate edition and the volume licensed Enterprise edition. We don't know anything about Windows 8 editions yet, but the responsible thing for Microsoft to do would be to make drive encryption available for more of its users.
File History
Windows Backup as it existed in Windows 7 is now called “Windows 7 File Transfer,” and is used to restore backups and files created with the Windows 7 Backup control panel. You can still create backups of Windows 8 with this tool if you want, including file backups and full system images, but the new Windows 8 tool designed to keep your data safe is called File History (and, if you needed more proof that File History is intended to replace Windows Backup, the feature won’t work if you have Windows Backup configured).
File History combines the old Windows Backup functionality with the Time Machine-like ability to keep and easily restore multiple versions of old files. Using either an external hard drive or a network share (at least, in the Consumer Preview—home versions of Windows 7 were unable to use network shares for Windows Backup, and a similar limitation may apply here depending on how the Windows 8 product editions shake out), you can backup copies of files in your document, picture, music, and video libraries, as well as your favorites, contacts, and items on your desktop.
If you save your files to a network drive, you can also “recommend” that drive for use to other members of any homegroup that your computer belongs to.
Remote Desktop
There are actually two versions of the Remote Desktop client in Windows 8—the first is a new Metro-style app, pictured above, that can connect to any Remote Desktop host but is optimized especially for Windows 8 and Metro. The second is the classic Remote Desktop client, which despite being updated to version 6.2 is hidden away in a system folder (the exact path is C:\Windows\System32\mstsc.exe) and is not present either on the Start screen or in any of the Windows Search sections—its operation is basically the same as in previous Windows versions, and it doesn't include the special Metro-centric controls of the Metro-style Remote Desktop app. Take note of this if you need (or prefer) to use the older client.
Windows Defender
Windows Defender, a lightweight anti-malware product first integrated into Windows Vista, has also been given an upgrade. Older versions of the program scanned only for spyware, but the Windows 8 revision picks up the anti-virus engine from the Microsoft Security Essentials product that XP, Vista, and 7 users must download and install separately. Microsoft Security Essentials is my anti-virus product of choice for my computers at home, and it's nice to see this basic level of protection (finally) make it into a default Windows install. Anti-virus companies like Symantec and McAfee may cry foul, but this is a net gain for users and for the state of security in Windows.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
286 Comments
View All Comments
Impulses - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
I plan to start my own riot once I'm done reading if there isn't any multi-display discussion... :pMrSpadge - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
AMD fans can be quite thin-skinned..Kristian Vättö - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
My system is not included in the table but don't worry, it's Intel based as well ;-) Z68 and i5-2500K to be exact.futurepastnow - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
I installed it and have been playing with it on an AMD-based system (laptop with a Turion II P540 processor, HD4250 graphics and 8GB of DDR3). It runs fine.I mean, actually using Win8 is like sticking a fork in my hand, but there are no performance issues whatsoever on what is now a basically low-end AMD system.
george1976 - Sunday, March 11, 2012 - link
It is not a funny post. The answer I am sure you know it very well, it is all about the money, money makes the world go round etc.Andrew.a.cunningham - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
So, wait. Intel paid me money to use years-old CPUs of theirs in a review of a beta product that another company made?I like this story. Tell me more.
medi01 - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
We shouldn't be telling you fairy tales.Having 8 systems with Intel and 0 with AMD you should have better argument than "oh, I've forgotten it in my pocket".type.
Why is it that you " have no AMD test systems on hand at present" please?
Andrew.a.cunningham - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
Because this is a review of Windows 8's new features, and it doesn't matter what hardware I run it on because an x86 processor is an x86 processor. Because I'm also an OS X writer and AMD doesn't come in Macs. Because Intel offered bang/buck and battery life last time I was in the market for a laptop. Because the business-class PCs that I usually buy lean heavily toward Intel.You wanna buy me an AMD system? Please do. Otherwise, I'm sorry I don't have anything in my arsenal, but not sorry enough to spend $400-600+ on computing equipment I won't otherwise use.
medi01 - Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - link
It doesn't matter what hardware eh?"This broad list of hardware, most of it at least a couple of years old, should be representative of most machines that people will actually be thinking about upgrading to Windows 8"
And this, coming from a hardware reviewer, is insulting humanity:
"Because Intel offered bang/buck and battery life last time I was in the market for a laptop"
You can have good AMD notebooks (with good battery life AND performance, including GPU) at price points where there is NO Intel offering.
Andrew.a.cunningham - Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - link
"Insulting humanity?" Dude, perspective. I'm trying very hard to engage you in a rational conversation, so try to extend the same courtesy to me. They're just CPUs, and I don't understand why you're attacking me personally about them.I'm not sure what notebooks you're referring to - even a cursory glace at Newegg, Best Buy, and other retailers shows Intel offerings featuring Pentiums and Core i3s (both Nehalem and Sandy Bridge-based) competing in the sub-$500 (and sub-$400) market where AMD is offering Brazos and Llano chips - AMD's GPUs are going to be much better but Intel's CPUs are also much better, so what you buy depends on what your workload is. Some of the AMD laptops I'm seeing use single-core processors, which I wouldn't recommend to anyone in 2012 regardless of GPU.
The difference becomes more apparent once you start looking at higher-end laptops - I've had a very hard time finding a 14" or 15" AMD laptop with anything other than a 1366x768 display, for example, and an equally hard time finding an AMD notebook with dedicated graphics. I've looked not just on Newegg and other retailers, but also on the websites of major OEMs like Dell, HP, and Lenovo - their AMD offerings are pretty sparse.
This is AMD's problem right now, at least in notebooks - it's "good enough" at the low end, but get into the middle and high-end and (without even considering performance) you very rarely even have an AMD option.
Also, for the record, the last time I was in the market for a laptop was about two years ago when I bought my E6410 - this was well before Brazos and Llano.