Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

What we know about Windows 9 so far

20 replies to this topic
MarshalMoo
  • MarshalMoo

    Hateoful Player

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2013
  • None
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#1

Posted 15 March 2014 - 12:59 AM

After the flop that was Windows 8, what can we look forward to with Windows 9, expected to be released in April 2015?

Here's what I've gathered:

  • Codename: Threshold (Doorstop in some circles)
  • Keeps the tiled metro display
  • Fewer SKUs

 

Feel free to add the information you've gathered. I'd also like to know your opinion on what market Windows 9 might reach; gamers, office workers, 10-year-old boys who like to play kick the baby or whatever apps are going to be on it?

 

If this is all Windows 9 has to offer, I'd rather go with the "coming back" Windows 7 for business and casual gaming like iRO or something.


uNi
  • uNi

    Feroci

  • Administrator
  • Joined: 14 May 2004
  • None
  • Best Official Gang 2014 [Feroci]

#2

Posted 15 March 2014 - 01:41 AM

I'd be happier if they continued upgrading XP.


Killerdude
  • Killerdude

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#3

Posted 15 March 2014 - 01:59 PM

I'd be happier if they continued upgrading XP.

We all wish they would, But they gotta stay hip and trendy somehow..


drr26
  • drr26

    But I'm a f*cking raspberry!

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2011
  • None

#4

Posted 16 March 2014 - 09:04 PM

They are planning to integrate xbox one and windows phone OS more apparently.

 

I'll stick to windows 7 from a disc when I get a new laptop, 8 looks sh*te and 9 will too if it's  the same

  • SilverRST likes this

Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#5

Posted 17 March 2014 - 05:52 AM Edited by Slamman, 17 March 2014 - 05:55 AM.

All Along, Windows 9 ideal was to give further expansion to an OS for desktops, the flop you call Windows 8 is geared for new generational portable devices, bridging a well needed gap from desktop to Internet, to portable device. Because you or others lose sight of that, the bigger picture, doesn't make Win8 a fail. What I'd deem the 'fail' or flop is the MS transitional phase in recent years, like Apple losing Steve Jobs, they were set to continue for some time without Steve, but I don't think MS fares as well without Ballmer and Gates.

 

Now if there's again portable OS talk and Windows 9 comes up, instead of talk of further sub-iterations of Windows 8 (8.1), then I'd be surprised because Windows 7 is in some ways, long in the tooth already. I can live with it as long as XP's been around, which still is mind boggling!

  • Graven likes this

Killerdude
  • Killerdude

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#6

Posted 19 March 2014 - 09:38 PM

They are planning to integrate xbox one and windows phone OS more apparently.

 

I'll stick to windows 7 from a disc when I get a new laptop, 8 looks sh*te and 9 will too if it's  the same

Actually, Wrong, Windows 9 should be, if history has proven itself, The good New Windows.

Like XP is to 2k, 7 to Vista, etc..

 

Windows 8 is the sh*tty Windows, Therefore Windows 9 should be the not sh*tty Windows.


Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#7

Posted 20 March 2014 - 01:29 AM

Calling Windows 8 the sh**ty Windows is still doing it a disservice. Remember that 8.1 and any further improvements should benefit Win8 the same way SP2 benefitted Vista. I've been using Windows Vista for a long time now and I can't recall any trouble whatsoever, so I know there were discussions about gaming and driver support, but it still ran problem free aside from KSOD, which was remedied easy enough by reinstalling on top of the old Windows directory partition

  • Mince likes this

drr26
  • drr26

    But I'm a f*cking raspberry!

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2011
  • None

#8

Posted 20 March 2014 - 12:17 PM

 

They are planning to integrate xbox one and windows phone OS more apparently.

 

I'll stick to windows 7 from a disc when I get a new laptop, 8 looks sh*te and 9 will too if it's  the same

Actually, Wrong, Windows 9 should be, if history has proven itself, The good New Windows.

Like XP is to 2k, 7 to Vista, etc..

 

Windows 8 is the sh*tty Windows, Therefore Windows 9 should be the not sh*tty Windows.

 

 

History means nothing. Wait and see


Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#9

Posted 20 March 2014 - 05:01 PM

If you mean Windows 8 and 9 are meant to do the same thing, in effect, you're probably wrong. That's what I'm getting at. Home PCs aren't dead yet. It's a popular myth due to sluggish sales, but there's always slumps in business


Mince
  • Mince

    Ménage à trois

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • United-States

#10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 03:42 AM Edited by Mince, 21 March 2014 - 03:43 AM.

There's been tons of rumors being regurgitated on The Verge, TechnoBuffalo and other tech sites over the past few months; I've seen a few pieces talking about a potential return of the start menu, the replacement of the modern UI, somehow even more unity between desktop and mobile, etc. However, one of the most interesting articles I saw was this one. It's not the exact same article I saw originally, but I just did a quick search and found one with the same source.

 

What I find interesting about it are some of the remarks that this guy who worked on design for Windows 8, Jacob Miller, says. Among them:

 

 


...or some other way of me trying to convince you that Metro is actually useful. I've talked about those in the past extensively on reddit, but for this discussion let's throw that all out the window. For this discussion, assume that Metro is sh*t for power users (even if you don't believe it to be).

 

 

Whatever feature we wanted to add into Windows, it had to be something that was simple enough for casual users to not get confused with, but also not dumbed down enough to be useless to power users. Many, MANY features got cut because of this.

 

 

He mentions the same cycle that Killerdude referenced, although more on a level about new features vs. improvements, as opposed to just sh*t vs. good:

 

 

Windows 7 couldn't have existed without the lessons we learned from the mess that was vista. Xp couldn't have existed without 2000. Hopefully Windows 9 will be a solid refinement on all this.

 

He mentions things like multiple desktops being features that have been cut in the casual vs. power user struggle. If all of this is legitimate, hopefully we'll see Windows 9 being a power user-focused operating system that brings new features to the desktop, reinstates desktop features that were removed in Windows 8, and so forth.

  • tadejpetric likes this

esmittystud101
  • esmittystud101

    You Sir, Do Not Praise The Sun

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#11

Posted 21 March 2014 - 01:16 PM Edited by esmittystud101, 21 March 2014 - 01:16 PM.

I think it will support Direct X 12


Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#12

Posted 21 March 2014 - 11:55 PM Edited by Slamman, 21 March 2014 - 11:59 PM.

Intel's major change up comes by this year's end, so I think complimenting it with new Windows would be good if it can be in place by the holidays.

 

I tried to catch MS's last major update, and they tried to do too many changes within a year, so I think the hardware/software thing should flow smoother this time. The issue they had with Sandy Bridge is the recall and not enough gestation time before pulling the plug on more then one new introduction!

 

Sockets I'm referring to and 1st gen Nehalem, but not saying it wasn't a worthy upgrade, but a bit too soon and people like me got burned on their investment as it was so short lived.

 

http://www.zdnet.com...015-7000027541/


SilverRST
  • SilverRST

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2013
  • None

#13

Posted 23 March 2014 - 10:32 PM

IMHO Windows 8 looks damn f*cking ugly! If Windows 9 is like 8, I'll just stick with Windows7.


Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#14

Posted 24 March 2014 - 01:45 PM

Sad thing is Microsoft isn't the only company in recent history to decide a change in company logo and graphic design was somehow warranted, and they went with the most UNINSPIRED graphic designs yet.... I love the graphics of computing, and even appreciate Corporate logos over the years. They do become iconic, so as a way to bridge different device capabilities, I think Windows 8 dumbs down in particular to that reasoning, but for a desktop geared OS, there should be no reason for simplistic design. Most people made some effort to support AERO introduced with Vista, by now, so in today's technology environment, it's counter productive to make everything simplistic visually, when I'm sure there might be other ways the OS is bloated or using too many resources. It should be more user optional then not.

  • Mince likes this

M210F
  • M210F

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#15

Posted 27 March 2014 - 03:01 AM

I'm running Windows 8.1 on a non-touch screen laptop as I write this and it works very well for this. Obviously it's designed for touchscreens, but that isn't to diminish the fact that it works very well with laptops with all the gestures. I would absolutely hate to have it on a desktop, though.


Mince
  • Mince

    Ménage à trois

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • United-States

#16

Posted 28 March 2014 - 01:46 AM

Sad thing is Microsoft isn't the only company in recent history to decide a change in company logo and graphic design was somehow warranted, and they went with the most UNINSPIRED graphic designs yet.... I love the graphics of computing, and even appreciate Corporate logos over the years. They do become iconic, so as a way to bridge different device capabilities, I think Windows 8 dumbs down in particular to that reasoning, but for a desktop geared OS, there should be no reason for simplistic design. Most people made some effort to support AERO introduced with Vista, by now, so in today's technology environment, it's counter productive to make everything simplistic visually, when I'm sure there might be other ways the OS is bloated or using too many resources. It should be more user optional then not.

 

I definitely agree. Making things "modern" and simplistic is the trend for most companies now, and while I do like some attempts at this, most of them just seem bland and uninspiring. My biggest gripe with the modern look on Windows 8 is the lack of customization. With Windows 7, there were lots of options to customize Aero. In addition to changing transparency, you could change the color and size of title bars and other text. The basic theme was available for people that wanted it, as well as all the Classic and high contrast themes.

 

With Windows 8, all you get is the regular rainbow spectrum of window borders and the high contrast themes. If you change the color to black, the title bar is unreadable, which seems typical of inept Windows designers. You can patch your system to do custom themes, which I've done, but they aren't a substitute for lots of built-in options. Also, there are next to zero modern/Metro apps that allow the user to customize their layout or look. You can't change the icon or other files around, you can't install custom skins, you can't easily create shortcuts, you can't resize buttons or zoom in, etc. Never mind that most of the apps themselves are absolutely useless. I can't wait to see Microsoft finally pay some attention to their desktop programs, such as the Explorer interface itself, Windows accessories, Windows Live programs, etc.

I'm running Windows 8.1 on a non-touch screen laptop as I write this and it works very well for this. Obviously it's designed for touchscreens, but that isn't to diminish the fact that it works very well with laptops with all the gestures. I would absolutely hate to have it on a desktop, though.

I do wonder what using Windows 8 on a laptop with gestures is like. On my really old laptop, all I have is a scrolling gesture--no multi-touch. It kinda sucks, but I mostly use the desktop interface on there anyway.


M210F
  • M210F

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2013

#17

Posted 29 March 2014 - 01:12 AM

 

Sad thing is Microsoft isn't the only company in recent history to decide a change in company logo and graphic design was somehow warranted, and they went with the most UNINSPIRED graphic designs yet.... I love the graphics of computing, and even appreciate Corporate logos over the years. They do become iconic, so as a way to bridge different device capabilities, I think Windows 8 dumbs down in particular to that reasoning, but for a desktop geared OS, there should be no reason for simplistic design. Most people made some effort to support AERO introduced with Vista, by now, so in today's technology environment, it's counter productive to make everything simplistic visually, when I'm sure there might be other ways the OS is bloated or using too many resources. It should be more user optional then not.

 

I definitely agree. Making things "modern" and simplistic is the trend for most companies now, and while I do like some attempts at this, most of them just seem bland and uninspiring. My biggest gripe with the modern look on Windows 8 is the lack of customization. With Windows 7, there were lots of options to customize Aero. In addition to changing transparency, you could change the color and size of title bars and other text. The basic theme was available for people that wanted it, as well as all the Classic and high contrast themes.

 

With Windows 8, all you get is the regular rainbow spectrum of window borders and the high contrast themes. If you change the color to black, the title bar is unreadable, which seems typical of inept Windows designers. You can patch your system to do custom themes, which I've done, but they aren't a substitute for lots of built-in options. Also, there are next to zero modern/Metro apps that allow the user to customize their layout or look. You can't change the icon or other files around, you can't install custom skins, you can't easily create shortcuts, you can't resize buttons or zoom in, etc. Never mind that most of the apps themselves are absolutely useless. I can't wait to see Microsoft finally pay some attention to their desktop programs, such as the Explorer interface itself, Windows accessories, Windows Live programs, etc.

I'm running Windows 8.1 on a non-touch screen laptop as I write this and it works very well for this. Obviously it's designed for touchscreens, but that isn't to diminish the fact that it works very well with laptops with all the gestures. I would absolutely hate to have it on a desktop, though.

I do wonder what using Windows 8 on a laptop with gestures is like. On my really old laptop, all I have is a scrolling gesture--no multi-touch. It kinda sucks, but I mostly use the desktop interface on there anyway.

 

It works well. If you get the Netflix app on the store (the only app I really use) then you really get to tell how convenient it can be- reading something on half the screen and watching netflix on the other, or writing a paper with the information on another page, up at the same time.


Audiophile
  • Audiophile

    http://gabenislife.com/

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2012
  • Canada

#18

Posted 29 March 2014 - 03:38 PM

I hated the Windows 8 update. Not that 7 was some amazing piece of OS, but at the least it was better than 8 once they released a few updates. If I wanted a f*cking touchscreen, I'd use my tablet. I don't want my PC to be used as some hybrid laptop/tablet. 

 

Lately I have just gotten sick of MS and only use my Windows based PC for gaming. Everything else I use my Macbook. I just prefer the OS there to what MS is putting out lately. 

 

I really hope they can do something better with 9. I really do. But I have a feeling I'll be sticking to my Mac for everything but gaming. For the most part, still need a Windows PC for that. 

 

I just hate this trend of how everything has to look like it's running on a tablet. 


_FRANKENSTEIN_
  • _FRANKENSTEIN_

    f*ck Google Ask Me!!!

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Jul 2013
  • None

#19

Posted 29 March 2014 - 05:47 PM

I'd be happier if they continued upgrading XP.


Xp is dead :/

yojc
  • yojc

    ~y

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Dec 2008
  • Vatican-City
  • Best Poster [Tech] 2014
    Most Knowledgeable [Tech] 2013
    Helpfulness Award

#20

Posted 29 March 2014 - 06:42 PM

I wouldn't consider XP dead yet. It will live as long as there is third-party support for it.

Slamman
  • Slamman

    Smote

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2003
  • United-States

#21

Posted 29 March 2014 - 09:34 PM Edited by Slamman, 29 March 2014 - 09:35 PM.

I am running my last install of XP on a current machine, well, started with what I had for my Acer 4710 Centrino dual core, still 32bit. A lot of software is in 32bit, so I feel what they try and steer you away towards is future software using more threading and memory capability, or even CPU capabilities that move under the hood, so to speak. Redesigning the layout of any future motherboards.

 

You guys recall when the ZIF was thought to be going extinct? That CPUs would now be soldered to mobos you buy? This was a concern for a month or two until we heard back from Intel and mobo makers that it was just a rumor or similar, CPUs sold for expansion or upgrade options weren't going away any time soon.

 

I still worry that in 3 years, Vista support ends! It looks like the extensions covering all OS considerations were 2 to 3 years, over the 10 year pattern we got into, when 2012 looked to be closing in on a cut off date.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users