Slashdot Mirror
Windows 9 Already? Apparently, Yes.
Nerval's Lobster writes "A little over a year after Microsoft released Windows 8, and a mere three months after it pushed out a major update with Windows 8.1, rumors abound that Windows 9 is already on its way. According to Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows, Microsoft will begin discussing the next version of Windows (codenamed 'Threshold,' at least for the moment) at April's BUILD conference. 'Threshold is more important than any specific updates, he wrote. 'Windows 8 is tanking harder than Microsoft is comfortable discussing in public, and the latest release, Windows 8.1, which is a substantial and free upgrade with major improvements over the original release, is in use on less than 25 million PCs at the moment.' Microsoft intends Threshold to clean up at least a portion of Windows 8's mess. Development on the latest operating system will supposedly begin in late April, which means developers who attend BUILD won't have access to an early alpha release—in fact, it could be quite some time before Microsoft locks down any new features, although it might double down on Windows 8's controversial 'Modern' (previously known as 'Metro') design interface. Yet if Thurrott's reporting proves correct, Microsoft isn't abandoning the new Windows interface that earned such a lackluster response—it's betting that the format, once tweaked, will somehow revive the operating system's fortunes. With Ballmer leaving the company and a major reorganization underway, it'll be the next Microsoft CEO's task to make sure that Windows 9 is a hit; in fact, considering that rumored 2015 release date, shepherding the OS could become that executive's first major test."
I'm waiting for 9.1. Don't want to be first in the pool.
The H/W support and other features of Windows 8 were completely overshadowed by the interface. Fix the interface and maybe MS gets a third chance.
Time to party like it's 2009!
Again!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Windows 20 is planned for next fall.
So this will be the Star Trek: Nemesis version, the one that breaks the rule that every other release is OK.
Write a good clean seperation for the launcher and let app developers go to town, like they do on Android. Let the best one win, and incorperate its fearues as the offical one.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Other than MS breaking DX on newer versions, whats the killer app for yet another Windows GUI makeover? 64bit? real security? Multiple monitor support? Fonts?
Other than gamers and people stuck on the MSOffice upgrade treadmill, I don't see anyone needing the upgrade past 7.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Knowing Microsoft, this is what they're going to do:
- Remove Right-Click capability
- Remove all menu bars and hotkeys
- Require SuperAdmin privileges for everything from resizing a window to shutting down the computer
- Make MSOffice 100% touch-screen compatible, removing all mouse compatibility
- Make ribbons 60% bigger
- Remove ability to save over existing files
MS shouldn't create any new versions of Windows O/S. It should take Windows 7 and make it a subscription-based product. Pay $50/year and MS will maintain it in its current form forever. It has everything that it needs to have - all it needs is ongoing support for bug/security fixes. No more churn on hardware. No more churn on software. Just make Windows 7 the new standard so that any investment into hardware/software for Windows 7 is never thrown out and make Windows 7 rock solid. I would happily pay $50/year to have the O/S locked down and put into maintenance mode in perpetuity.
As long as Windows 9 has metro is won't a hit. Microsoft doesn't seem willing to change any major issues people have with 8/8.1, Windows 9 will probably turn out to be is a bunch of little fixs, basically 8.2, but with a huge price tag.
Drop the Metro/Modern interface, and focus on the desktop for business use - that is where Microsoft has always had it's strongest showing. If they don't, and insist that it's all touch, all Metro, all the time, they have just ceeded the business desktop to the Linux variants such as Mint and Ubuntu.
Metro on servers is a big turn off but MS will be slow to accept that server admins have different GUI needs. Sure core is catching on some but the GUI users will stick around until forced to use powershell.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Microsoft's goal is not to make laptop/desktop users happy. No mater how much they grumble, history has proven Microsoft needn't worry about other desktop/laptop platform alternatives. The people who need desktop/laptop that use Windows today will use it tomorrow. They might not get an upgrade for the sake of the new windows, but they were likely to not get an upgrade in the first place.
I expect MS to continue trying to throw the desktop users under the bus in the name of advancing their tablet/phone market. To them this probably means trying to evolve the 'modern' development environment (windows 8 modern apps are kind of crappy compared to the android/iOS alternatives in terms of navigation). One would reasonably hope that MS would wise up and give their desktop api rational capability to take advantage of higher DPI displays and window management capabilities that allow full screen apps without jumping headfirst into silverlight, but they don't have faith in Intel as a partner and still want to be on phones (even if they do see the doom in ARM tablets for them).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
What is the point of a new 'Windows' version? Is it provide major new capabilities, change the user interface, help Microsoft, or what? Shouldn't Microsoft actually spend some time thinking about what its users want? Users want a) compatibility with all of their existing hardware and software, b) familiar interface, c) reliability, d) security, e) access to new hardware and software protocols, f) minimal cost. I am guessing that a 'Windows 9' will not provide any of those things except...possibly...in a limited way...e) since that's what Windows 8 provided. If that is the case, the Windows 9 is the answer to a question that Microsoft users are not asking and its very mention fills them with dread.
Windows failed to learn a lot of the lessons that iOS and Android could have taught it. It failed to learn the lessons it should have from GNOME 3. It failed to bring the Internet to the desktop in a way which hadn't been tried in Windows since Windows 98.
Windows 8 finally brought us a managed application repository with automatic updates, monetization features, etc but only for modern UI. The Desktop apps were still their own special snowflakes stuck in "Don't accidentally a toolbar" install and update hell.
Windows 8 has tight integration with cloud services, but those are limited to only services and features hand picked by Microsoft and (last I checked) has no openness for third parties to integrate in the same way. GNOME 3 on the other hand, has lots of integration with various social and cloud services. Sign into Google for instance and your Google Docs are available in your Docs folder, your contacts show up in your Contacts app, your Google handouts get routed therough Empathy etc. Windows 8 does this for Facebook and Sky Drive but, again, only in the Modern UI.
Windows 8 Modern apps are firewalled from Windows 8 Desktop apps. Do you have Skype? You have two Skype apps. Do you have a chat client? You have two apps again. The same app on Android can run on everything from a wrist watch to a Television supporting tons of different input paradigms ALMOST natively (the developer has to do some basic UI legwork of course).
As a consequence of the previous point, lots of services (push notifications, application lifecycle management, etc) are available ONLY in Modern and not on the Desktop. Desktop apps still need to manage their own networking state and messaging. Many of the native applications were rebuilt as Modern full screen apps and their desktop equavalents were removed. The most galling is the Photo Viewer. If you open a picture in Explorer in the Desktop, all your windows go away and the image takes up the full screen.
In conclusion, Windows 8 problems don't stop at the Start Screen and framing the Start Screen as the biggest and only problem fundamentally misses what Microsoft did very, very wrong. Microsoft did not TRY to bring modern cloud technologies to the desktop. They ported their tablet OS to the desktop and stopped there.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
They should call it the "this is it" version. Make a grand video of the rehearse of its pre-release beta version. Hire a tech doctor to put it to sleep with anethesia. Have a great big media trial and debate. Then admit it's dead.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Microsoft stated with Windows 8 that they'd be moving to a far faster release cadence. What's with the surprise? The version number change... or? The title says it all - Windows 8 was released a year ago, windows 8.1 3 months ago. If they're going to get Windows 9 out the door anytime soon to follow the faster release cadence they'd HAVE to be working on it already. They probably started the second that Windows 8 shipped. Since everyone here appears to have a ridiculously short memory, let me remind you what was stated at Build 2013:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57591154-75/microsoft-moves-from-short-twitch-to-rapid-release-at-build-2013/
Oh joy a new set of incompatibilities and endless upgrades and updates await. Windows 8 broke a lot of desktop apps and 8.1 did the same, especially in the AV camp. Let's hope 9 at least maintains backward compatibility for app users otherwise it's more pain than it'll be worth.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Most people use Windows for one of those two things: gaming or business.
Make the following:
- Windows 2015: Gaming Edition, optimized for games, no useless services running in the background, only the bare utilities to help setup/add hardware easily.
- Windows 2015: Business Edition, optimized for business applications with strong support for emails, calendars, networking, etc.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Take away all hardware purchased/built prior to 2011. The longevity of hardware purchases is the real culprit. People no longer feel compelled to upgrade their hardware every three years (give or take). Outside of the gaming community and niche video/photo workers, what does the average person do on their pc that one from 2007 can't handle?
They really shot themselves in the foot with Windows 8. They were trying to make it like a mobile OS, with the whole idea being that their interface is unified across desktop, tablet, phone, etc. But then their Surface tablets bombed and nobody ever really wanted a Windows phone... They failed to make a significant dent on the mobile market which is dominated by Apple and Google. So all they're left with is PC users wondering why their new computer is trying to act like a tablet, and everyone's just immediately going to the good old-fashioned desktop. They definitely need to go for the growing mobile market if they want to survive through the next decade, but at the same time they need to do it in a way that doesn't alienate their PC market.
That happens to be Microsoft's biggest problem.
They had a really hard time convincing people that they needed more than XP, and they finally got it right with 7, when a decade did make XP clunky for modern hardware.
Barring some industry revolution, convincing people that 7 is outdated is going to be near impossible, for at least another 5 years.
It works, and has all the features that any non-geek needs.
...since Microsoft want's a new "APPS" business model and consumers like me just want a fast, reliable operating system. These two don't get along very well (IMHO).
+ 10% more pink on everything. Can't go wrong with pink.
I WANT TO WORK FOR STARDICK!
Mark my words: some time after the release of Windows 9, Microsoft may be making losses for the first time in its history. Same thing as Blackberry: for having failed to have adapted to a changing market, in spite of many, many warning signals.
A large company can make mistakes, and even repeated mistakes if and when its pockets are deep. It can not, however, keep making only mistakes. Which leads us to the conclusion: Microsoft will get a last chance - Widows 10. With that, it will be quitte ou double.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
It's not so much normal, I don't there is a 'normal' for major OS releases from microsoft, but 2015 is definitely reasonable.
Microsoft needs a deep pipeline for their products and they need to start taking about them early so developers have time to try stuff out. It's just not realistic to try and write the next Windows mostly in secret and behind NDA's and then land it on everyone's door step a month or two before release.
If they are going to talk about it in April and then maybe release in 2015, well truth be told that's probably not fast enough, but I'm not sure you can be expected to make it work much faster.
They should rename it Window 9, and drop the 's'. No more multiple windows. This is the design choice Microsoft has made. They've dropped the feature that made people want to use Windows and force a single Window format on users. They've dropped their namesake feature. It's ridiculous.
I'm looking forward to 9, as it should follow Microsoft's scheme of only-every-other-version-of-windows-doesn't-suck. As Vista was an obvious catastrophe, and 8 is starting to look the same way, 9 can't possibly be worse... right?
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
Every computer in this house has Windows on it, even my macs for work have a bootcamp partition with Windows 7 Pro. They also all are Windows 7 despite the fact that I have no less than 5 free copies of Windows 8 from work or developers conferences/seminars.
I remember being at those conferences and all the programmers and developers saying the something: we understand the logic behind having a unified UI across every platform....but the problem is every platform is different in terms of interface. Although I think part of the situation was that MS was expecting that all PC's moving forward would be sold with touch screens whether they were laptops or desktops. Which increasingly I'm seeing more and more all in one desktops with touch screens and tablet/notebook hybrids. Touch interface is great for tablets and phones. Not so much for desktops though. I saw this working for a company that wrote point of sale software. Initially we had a lot of users that had touch screens and on their next round of updates actually went to standard monitors and then keyboard/mouse for input.
At least Apple has stuck with having OSX & iOS as separate operating systems. It's true under the hood they share a lot of the same code, but their UI's are optimized for different input methods. Apple introduced launchpad giving OSX a iOS like App launcher, but you have to click an icon or button on the keyboard to bring it up. They haven't changed how OSX is used much in a decade.
Likewise, many people have now in business are used to the start button because that's what they have used for 15 going on 20 years. Hell there are kids entering college who never knew using a computer without a start button. The big mistake Microsoft made was wholesale change. It takes a lot of time to retrain people in the business world when you go messing with the basic UI.
If Microsoft had left windows 8 with a standard UI with start button and then a "Metro launcher" like Launchpad making it optional to bring up the tiles to get people used to it and then eventually transitioned to the new UI over 9/10 there would have been a lot less fussing.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
So why is everyone acting so surprised when they keep following this trend?
We are using windows 7 at work, also macosx and linux, but the windows machines are running windows 7, almost no windows 8 almost no windows XP.
And now Windows 9 is showing... tell me why should I upgrade my windows 7 machines ? The faster they release the less I want to upgrade. I prefer to wait until the dust settles. Even the users can understand this. Windows 7 have become a comfort zone.
MSFT is considering working on Cinnamon next since people don't seem to like Unity.
Though frankly I remember how pissed I was the first time I approached Android (in one of the adk VMs). I had an empty homescreen, with nothing to teach me how to swipe or bring up a menu. Didn't touch Android on a real phone until, like v2.2 or something (I was really happy with my PalmT|X at the time... still looking for a half-decent replacement for plucker / progect / handyshopper / pfuel , though some of the android apps are getting sorta close)
I have no issues with Windows 8, as I have a laptop with a touch screen on it, and it makes it rather nice to use after I got use to it... However the PC market, is moving away from what Microsoft can provide.
Personal Computing is going to the smart phones and tablets. We have Android and iOS which are specialized for this. Windows is trying to be a compromise between the two, normally this isn't too bad, however PC makers are not really jumping on the bandwagon with touch displays as fast as Microsoft though. Why because PC manufacturers are not selling like they use to, because average Joe home user doesn't need one anymore.
Now the PC is becoming a workstation for professionals. That means we need an OS built for this new needs. GNU/Linux UI's do have some advantage in this, however there is still too much Server OS, in its design. Windows has too much Personal Computer. We need an OS that is designed for modern usages, where it is about productivity and performance, and away from cute and friendly.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Seriously, there is so much freely available Unix derived code available with permissive licenses, and it works better than anything they could make from scratch or by improving the NT kernel. They should fork the BSD kernel, port the Windows 7 UI to it with the necessary upgrades, and write a Win32 emulation/compatibility mode for legacy apps. It can't be that hard, WINE et al were able to do it with zero help from MS.
Apple essentially did the same exact thing with less money and manpower than MS has at their disposal.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
They had a really hard time convincing people that they needed more than XP, and they finally got it right with 7, when a decade did make XP clunky for modern hardware.
No, Windows 7 just wasn't worse than XP. About the only thing that made it better than XP from an end user's viewpoint was decent 64-bit support.
I'm staying with my Windows 7 of 9 until they pry it out of my cold dead fingers.
Just calling the new release "Windows 9" isn't going to do the trick. They need to listen to what customers, especially power users and enterprise administrators, are saying. Grandma has already moved on to an iPad and she doesn't spend much money anyway; she's a lost cause. Forget about pandering to the lowest common denominator. Stop trying to beat Android and iOS at their own game. Emphasize that Windows is a tool while Android/iOS is a toy. Windows is what people use to get work done. That means a renewed focus on the desktop. Because, let's face it, if you're willing to ditch the desktop and legacy compatibility, you might as well ditch MS altogether.
Specifically, Microsoft needs to make it possible for desktop users to never see, or interact with, Metro. Yes, I know they want us all with touch screens and buying apps from their app store, but it isn't going to happen. All they are doing is alienating their most important customers. Bring back the real Start Menu so that people who have been using Windows for 10-20 years aren't confused and baffled by the new interface. (Remember that many people who use Windows at work are not technically oriented. Re-training costs money, and IT departments often don't have it to spend.)
Also fix the little things. These are important. An example: After using Windows since 1995, my eyes are used to seeing the title on the top left side of the window frame. Win8 centers it, for no good reason other than some designer's dubious sense of aesthetics. That completely breaks my eye-tracking and costs a second or two every time I have to look at the title. It doesn't sound like much, but little things add up, and minor issues of fit and finish are often the difference between a successful product and an unsuccessful one.
The longevity of hardware purchases is the real culprit.
Why? Microsoft is Software company. If they spent less time producing *software* rather then protecting its old Duopoly and using it to enter other markets. Maybe I could install it on my current hardware...by buying it perhaps. We don't even have to walk to the shops anymore or deal with disks anymore.
There is a whole market XP is not supported soon...hold on!
Good name. An even better name: Tipping point.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Conceptually I don't have a problem with an app store or a tablet interface (provided they don't take away my fucking start menu), but I *do* have a problem with the fact that they're trying to pull an iOS and phase in a closed ecosystem where the only way to get apps is to go through their app store. From a competition standpoint, no good can come of it. It's pushing us more toward expensive, locked down appliances and away from general purpose computers.
That said, I have to speculate that part of the reason people don't know how badly Windows 8 is doing is that Microsoft likely learned from their Vista failure and has hired marketing firms to canvas the internet with positive comments about it so that people don't realize how unpopular it actually is.
Clippy will be reborn!
Someone you trust is one of us.
Why is this a surprise? Company releases current version, starts to work on the next version. Heck, in many cases work on the next version starts even before the current version is released.
Make a desktop interface which is optimized for the desktop and is substantially better than anything that exists now. Look at all the academic research, and take years to adopt and polish it. Demand excellence internally and never believe your own BS.
Heck, even NextSTEP from 1990 is a better zeroth-order start.
In a nutshell: work on something truly great for your customers. Not for your delusional marketing requirements or internal power point power plays, e.g. "mobile and tablets are the future, and so we need to privilege their interface everywhere because we want Windows Everywhere."
Steve Jobs wasn't stupid enough to put a little microscopic Mac on the iPhone. The previous horrifying Windows Mobile 5 made that mistake, a miniature XP with a stylus on the phone. Microsoft still didn't learn!
Yes it's 32 bit support under 64 bit is horrid at best. I have to run a windows 7 32 bit VM for a LOT of the support software we use for hardware like polycom video conference units.
Windows 7 32 bit is the least buggy as far as the user is concerned if they have to use legacy or vertical market software. If you can simply re-buy everything as 64 bit, then 64 bit is the way to go.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You being locked into that is due to a local decision by your administrator, not a fault of Microsoft
Every MS-related slashdot article has someone bitching about something like this.
One simple check box could have saved the computer industry including Microsoft hundred of millions in lost sales. - Windows 8- boot options: [ ] Metro OR [X] Desktop - Click OK to restart with the new settings
Anyone who says they love windows 8 and posts as AC is suspect of being a Microsoft shill.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
There was Windows "Millennium Edition" and there was also Windows 2000 -- Now, before you say that Win2K wasn't a "consumer" OS, it essentially was because a lot of people Upgraded to 2K not from NT but from Win98. And XP was the first merge of the 2k and "consumer" windows codebases, which is how we wound up with XP Pro, (there was never a Win98 Pro, for example)...
Anyhow, my point is; you make it seem as if this is all cut and dry, like MS is following a master plan, but the history of Windows releases is a little more complex and convoluted.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I do not want an OS with a codename based on a horrible episode of "Star Trek: Voyager" or a crappy "Sci-Fi" Series, both by Brannon Braga. Nor any version of Windows that keeps the tiles as default.
From many users' standpoint, the fact that you can actually plug in most random hardware without having an install disk is a pretty significant upgrade over XP.
There is no perfect operating system, and the folks running distrowatch are probably happy with this fact.
Given a finite number of coding resources, Win 7 is as good as a desktop OS is going to be for nearly all of its users, at long as they are familiar with the standards set since 96.
This. Even if Win8 comes with the funky UI, I'm still mostly happy with the quality of software Microsoft puts out these days. In the past their stuff was unstable, bloated, and had major security problems. These serious problems have now been fixed for the most part.
What I have works fine and I see no reason to change.
I frankly could not care if it is a better OS if the one I have meet my needs fine. With 1/3 of internet users in the same boat with XP still in 2014 I know I am not alone. The real question is what is MS going to do now that computers are stable, secure, and fast enough and there is no night and difference from upgrading anymore?
http://saveie6.com/
Mark my words: some time after the release of Windows 9, Microsoft may be making losses for the first time in its history.
Exactly what is going to replace Windows and Office on the desktop? Or are you predicting the desktop/laptop PC will go away? Frankly while I think Microsoft is likely to remain somewhat ineffectual for the next 5-10 years, I really cannot see anyone displacing them off the desktop anytime soon. They have some threats (Android probably most notably) but they are not existential threats just yet. The installed base of Windows and Office is simply too large and too expensive to replace for them to pull a Blackberry.
There's plenty of legitimate problems with Windows 7. Most of them just aren't show-stoppers, and it really is a pretty solid system, but "absolutely nothing wrong?" Please.
I still can't figure out why it randomly stops recognizing the primary DNS server (but can still reach it when I run nslookup). Been doing that for a couple of years.
Metro isn't a bad UI in itself. The problem is how it is currently implemented on the desktop.
First, of all the default Metro apps, not a single one matches the functionality of their desktop equivalents. That alone is enough to sink it, especially when it took me less than an hour after first installing W8 to find something that I needed the old application for (the Music app lacked workgroup support, and I wanted to play some music stored on my laptop). If your default Metro apps are less functional in a concrete and quantifiable way than the old Desktop apps, then Metro apps in general get a reputation as being underfunctional and dumbed down. It doesn't matter that your Music app works just as well, even better, than the Android music app or the iOS version of iTunes - on the desktop, it's fighting WMP and all the third-party apps like VLC and whatnot.
Second, you shouldn't have two different means of interaction. We knew this even back in the CLI->GUI transition - DOS prompts, and later the "command prompt", were encapsulated in windows because everything was being done through windows.
There's two ways this could be done. The simplest, and perhaps the most popular, would be to simply let Metro apps run in a window (or something interacted with like windows). Yes, Metro apps look different than Desktop apps, but who really gives a shit? Counting the windows I have open right now, at least four have their own distinct UI paradigm (Thunderbird, GTalk, Steam and PuTTY), plus several that differ from Windows norms in subtler ways (including Microsoft's own Media Player).
Or you could double down on Metro's tiling, and make Desktop apps run in Metro tiles instead of in the traditional windows. If you designed it right for the desktop, this could be perfectly fine, maybe even better than the desktop. But you'd have to design it for power users to be able to use, because the casual computer users are slowly switching to tablets or laptops. Don't run things fullscreen unless it's a small enough screen - let us configure layouts we want on each monitor, switching them as needed, and just "drop" apps into the spaces. Add virtual desktop support, so I can emulate having six or twelve or thirty monitors instead of three, and I'd basically have my current work setup, with slightly more space (lack of window borders+UI) and without having to manually set up these layouts.
In short, having *two* UIs makes users choose between the two to find one they prefer, using the other only if forced to. On the tablet, they went for Metro because it was more tablet-oriented and the only Desktop app of note was Office. On the desktop, we went for the classic UI because its programs worked better and because most of us have enough display real estate that using fullscreen apps for almost anything is wasteful. Instead, go full-on with Metro, but give us variants (I'd go with Phone, Tablet, Laptop and Workstation, each slightly tailored for that device class) so that our *experience* fits what we're using.
That's really the short version of it - they decided to bundle API, UI and UX, and they failed because those things don't actually have to be bound together.
That's the version when they strip out the useless chrome and get a stable release using the feedback from InfoWorld.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
While on a whole, I have liked Windows 7, there isn't nothing wrong with it. Part of MS's problem is they feel the need to change how to do simple administrative things with each release by either renaming or relocating things. It's annoying and there's usually no perceptible benefit for these changes.
In a way you're right. But you still have to wait for the stable bug fix release, so that means 9.11
Remember Windows 3.11?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I've always been told to ignore people that talk in absolutes. I have quite a few problems with Windows 7. Most of them are fixable, but it's a pain in the ass. Also, someone at MS keeps resetting my registry settings that turn off libraries because they feel like forcing it down my throat on OS Updates for some reason.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
The windows 8 kernel is great! ... yeah yeah we all hate Metro.
But I run it on a Windows Phone. The kernel on the Windows phone is identical to Server 2012 and the Xboxone. It is quicker than my older Android one, lite, responsive, and has low cpu utiliazation. MS really did cut out many millions of lines of code with Windows 7 from the XP days to make the kernel as small and modular as possible. It is not a micro kernel in any sense of the means but its latency, size, and other issues with responsiveness and power usage right now have Linux beat.
Linux is really complicated with calls all over the place.
http://saveie6.com/
Early adopter here -- it came pre-installed on a notebook.
What I eventually realized is that MS is now supporting 3 separate UIs, all with quirks, and all with separate design philosophies.
The classic, window-based UI has been evolving over 15 years; it's straight-foraward, if cluttered. Start button; apps binned to the task bar; random crap on desktop; text-based menu bars; high contrast, colourful design elements.
Ribbons in Office. Similar to windows, but it replaced the menu bars with ribbons. More customizable than the menu bars, but my old eyes find the muted colours, grays on white, and small icons troublesome, especially in Outlook. Runs exclusively in classic UI.
Metro -- which actually comes in two flavours, touch and keyboard / mouse. The touch interface isn't bad, although I personally find it a pain to sort through open apps. But ... I find it hard to stay in Metro. Open up the calculator app, and you end up with a full screen calculator that looks STUPID on an 18" monitor (similar calculator on a 4" smartphone looks great, mind you). Open up Outlook? Back into classic. Further, the apps themselves feature scrolling vertically and horizontally which is ... disconcerting. If there's a pattern as to the reasoning behind H v. V scrolling, I don't get it. While the tiles themselves are colourful (a reference to the classic UI?), the apps are back to scroll bars that are grey on white (Office?). And the Music app is mostly black / grey / white. Weird choice, that, since it removes a design element that can highlight useful information. And, having a whole bunch of live tiles scrolling information on an 18" monitor is distracting, not illuminating.
But Metro with a keyboard and mouse? I know it can work ... but "put mouse in corner and pray" seems like a poor design choice. Further, I'm unaware of any helpful hints within the OS itself about how to use keyboard shortcuts. Seriously, MS made one of the most counter-intuitive UIs I've ever used with a keyboard and mouse, but did an outlandishly poor job of introducing it. First impressions last -- and if the first impression was "rage", good luck to you.
And, finally, my grousing aside, but if MS had released Win 8 with useful, clever, and outlandishly cool apps, we might not really be having this conversation. Instead, MS has my geographical location (Toronto, ON), but the installed apps gave me news, sports and weather for NYC (seriously, they got the country wrong?). Again, it's small -- but it would've been a nice touch if the apps tried to have a local flare because, frankly, I don't care about NYC. At all. The other apps? Music is interesting, especially since it includes free streaming (something of a big deal in Canada), but the interface blends local libraries with cloud streaming not-quite-seamlessly. The other apps, like mail and calendar, suck.
Win 8 is a deeply weird beast. It's fast. It's stable. And I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, especially if you're wedded to Office. The weird blending of multiple UIs is, plain and simple, goofy.
Looking back at my comments. What I think I would like is a small, tablet-sized second monitor for running Metro, connected to my desktop. I'd have whatever I'm doing on the classic desktop open, but could easily glance over and see Twitter updates, incoming e-mails -- a lot of things I use my iPhone for. Weird thing, that.
The only advantage I can think of for Modern UI/Windows Runtime in Windows 8 is that it lets you buy an app once and run it on both your Windows RT tablet and your desktop PC.
Why oh why cant they just make the OS switch to Metro interface when in tablet mode and back to the old desktop style when using the computer as a desktop pc. Spend the money developing a seamless interface swap for that. It will allow people to get there toes wet to test the water instead of drowning them in the ocean of metro. A good idea is only good of we can adopt it at our own pace without disrupting our personal productivity.
> in fact, it could be quite some time before Microsoft locks down any new features, although it might double down on Windows 8's controversial 'Modern' (previously known as 'Metro') design interface. Yet if Thurrott's reporting proves correct, Microsoft isn't abandoning the new Windows interface that earned such a lackluster response—it's betting that the format, once tweaked, will somehow revive the operating system's fortunes.
(Emphasis mine.) Oh man. If true, Microsoft is dead. [1] Doubling down on Metro (or whatever they choose to call it) plays to a market they're never going to significantly occupy, while starving their cash cow. It would be the worst possible decision in a string of bad decisions.
On the bright side, this will be very entertaining. I'll have to stock up on popcorn.
[1] Ok, not dead dead, that's hyperbole. But completely misunderstanding their user base to that extent for two major releases in a row over six years, they're likely to become a smaller company as a result. Perhaps much smaller.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Hallo,
A comment from someone who just was learning about computers then, so take this with some salt...
One basic problem about Windows Me is that its timing was wrong. We all heard about the crash happenings of Win 95. Win 98 was a decent effort at least to tidy all that up. Not perfect, but you could see that someone tried. My first comp I learned on was Win 98.
The problem was, behind the scenes someone started a "skunkworks" second dev track based on the Win NT line that was at that time much more stable. Then they managed to get hold of the legendary Dave Cutler who poured himself into it all, and basically stamped the Win 2000, which when tweaked, became the Win XP that we all argue about today.
Win Me was a last left over holdover from the Win 98 codebase without all that extra hardening in, so it ran up against too many things that had been solved on the other dev track from Win 2000 / Win XP.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Until you discover that an essential program doesn't work in Wine, and its publisher is unwilling to take your money to port it to Linux or make it work in Wine.
Microsoft themselves stated that they're corporate goal is to migrate away from the software business to become a device and service company. This plan means pushing people to the tablet as the delivery mechanism and the proverbial "cloud" as the platform. Microsoft sees the desktop PC as a dead-end and wants to be the one that drives a stake through it's heart - the future is software as a service and thin (razor) clients.
In that light, the dichotomous UIs of Metro and the Windows desktop make sense in an agenda where they want to slowly deprecate the desktop entirely. Once Office is migrated from the Windows platform to the Microsoft cloud platform, the desktop version of Office will also be deprecated. Users may not want the Microsoft, but, heck, if they do it sufficiently gradually enough, users will acclimate to the new world order.
I think this is one of the sources of friction between Microsoft and OEMs like HP. The manufacturers business models aren't aligned with Microsoft's objectives. I suppose the reason that a number of those vendors showed Android - Windows hybrid devices at CES wasn't because the vendors though anyone would be particularly interested or that it was a good idea, it was more to demonstrate that computer manufacturers would be just as happy (if not more happy) to jump in with the Android or ChromeOS camp unless Microsoft starts making certain concessions to them.
I see it going one of two ways: Microsoft succeeds and the Windows PC becomes history and long-time Windows users find themselves software subscribers with dedicated mobile consumption devices, or Microsoft shoots itself in the foot and stumbles about while the rest of the world grabs the Android / ChromeOS ball and runs with it. At this point, I think it's increasingly Google's game to lose rather than Microsoft's game to win.
I had the consumer preview version a few yrs back. After not being able to escape from metro for entirely too long, I uninstalled the OS and sold my MSFT stock.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
We should really do a release date pool, and make our best educated guesses as to when Windows 9 will ship.
Will it be like Windows Vista and takes years longer than the original estimate, or will it be more like Windows 7 and be a release with minor changes that ships on time?
My money is on November 6, 2014, and that it will be little more than a UI refresh for Windows 8.1.
Who took the "personal" out of "personal computer" --? The whole point of personal computers was putting the users in control. How is anyone supposed to get anything done without being able to control their tools? Ludicrous.
The only time I use windows to get work done is when I'm forced to due to compatibility issues.
Otherwise, I find it tedious to get work done in Windows, in comparison to OS X or Linux.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
... shepherding the OS could become that executive's first major test.
It's a three-legged sheep. Do it and yourself and the world a favor and put it down. Don't let it hobble along and slow down the whole herd and make it vulnerable to predation from those nasty Ubunts.
They need to get their heads out of that warm, dark place and realize my laptop and desktop ARE not and never will be tablets.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Overbearing, arrogant and clueless.
It was Microsoft's attitude that made me barf. It was the "We know best" and you're going to use your computer OUR way, an you will *like* it. Had Microsoft put in an obvious button that allowed a user to switch between "desktop" mode and "tablet" mode, nobody today would be talking about this today.
Instead, they told their captive audience of business users that their opinions didn't matter, that MIcrosoft knew best, and that you would goddam well take what Microsoft knows was good for you, you little techno-peasant scum.
It was just like what they did with their programming languages (i.e. dead ending them, not designing for automated migration from the start, and so on). Learning something new, and revamping all your old macros, processes, training guides and formerly useful knowldge was *your* problem.
Many of us had parents like this. We left them, and don't visit much. The same will happen to Windows and it's developers, I expect.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The problem with Windows 8 is not entirely the UI. It's "apps". Microsoft has a vision of "apps", which they've outlined to developers. "Apps" don't cost much, don't do much, and Microsoft gets a cut of the revenue. "Apps" are usually written in Javascript/HTML/CSS. All core functionality is provided by Microsoft. It worked for Apple on the iPhone, after all.
"Apps" which have Big Data do the big data in the "cloud", preferably on Microsoft servers. This has gone further with businesses than one might expect. Many cash registers are now "cloud-based". This is the future if vendors have their way.
All your base are belong to us.
Unfortunately Win8 and RT arent really compatible, they're barely even cross-compileable. Your developer would have to write / rewrite & maintain a separate RT version codebase of every app. Which has killed the main reason for Windows RT stone dead.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
'Nuf said.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
To be fair, Linux had a pretty strong head start, what with Unix starting to develop its CLI capabilities back in the 1970's and its GUI in 1984. That means that Linux has gone through an extra decade of knowing what doesn't work so well UI-wise, and the results show. Well, that and the fact that it's relatively easy to switch around UI behavior without changing the underlying operating system, and it becomes cheaper to fight the various battles about UI.
I am officially gone from
Windows 7 also supports multiple cores with the Home version. Only XP Professional was able to use multiple cores. At the time the only other option was Windows 2000.
Had a BP6 back in the day, when having two cores actually meant the fun of two separate CPU.
Not usually reply to AC but this is true +1
Any idea whether this is a microkernel, or is it still a hybrid?
Honestly, I can imagine that people will clamor for whatever they put out, simply to get off of windows 8.
But in reality, people will likely just buy a new computer instead of upgrading the OS, and I'll be there to snatch up all those cheap windows 8 machines.
Or they will be using Android thin clients, or Firefox OS, or Google OS by then. Or I suppose more Linux flavors.
It doesn't matter much to me... at work we still have people migrating from XP to 7, so I won't have to worry about getting off of Win7 until 2018 or so.
And at home it's Linux for me, since 1998.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Even MacOSX is no longer a microkernel but that is the closest to it.
It is hybrid.
http://saveie6.com/
Metro on servers is a big turn off but MS will be slow to accept that server admins have different GUI needs. Sure core is catching on some but the GUI users will stick around until forced to use powershell.
Not just different admins but different users. Microsoft, Gnome and iOS should stop focusing on creating the "best" UI for all users and instead focus on creating UIs that suit specific workers.
When I'm out & about, my Android phone, or iOS works pretty well (except I can't use the keyboard in iOS well, let me change that!).
Surfing at home, ebook reading, listening to music in the background, I like my tablet. Doesn't work well when I have to remote to more than 1 system at a time.
At home, for scanning, editing with 2-3 docs, Win 7, MacOX or anything with 1 screen and a desktop works well. I might remote to my Linux box or a Macintosh.
At work, I have open: web browser, 10-20 xterms, editor/IDE, a few VMs, PDF documentation. No *way* can I do that on a tablet! 1 screen and a desktop can kinda do it. 2 screens with 4 workspaces does much better. Oh, to do email and sharepoint, I run rdesktop to my windows desktop. Also, having the workspaces & screens independent works better then xinerama. I can have the browser up on the left and choose from the group of windows in a workspace on the right.
To look at an analogy, do you use the same shovel for digging dirt, shoveling snow, moving gravel and planting bulbs? Why are there framing hammers, sledge hammers, tack hammers and carpentry hammers?
I've always^H^H^H^H^H^H often been told to ignore people that talk in absolutes. I have quite a few problems with Windows 7. Most of them are fixable, but it's a pain in the ass. Also, someone at MS keeps resetting my registry settings that turn off libraries because they feel like forcing it down my throat on OS Updates for some reason.
Fixed that for you. -- Now people can pay attention to your post.
We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
I was a NeXTstep user at college. There is nothing remotely similar b/w any Windows version and NeXTstep. In NeXTstep, you had the dock, and the window manager that showed you the entire file system, and let you drive from there, w/ options to mount your favorite apps on the doc. There was no start menu. One can argue about which approach was better, but really, there were no similarities b/w the 2 - except for Microsoft using 'Recycle Bin' in Windows 95 instead of nothing in Windows 3.11: NeXT's equivalent of that was the 'Recycler'
3.11 just added networking. it was very similar to 3.1 in bugs. 3.11 simply added the workgroup networking abilities.
3.1 Was just windows. 3.11 was Windows for Workgroups.
What he/she said +1
Technically, one of the problems with micro-kernel design is MORE latency then a monolithic kernel, not less. Not that it matters with today's computers. It's just a little apparent that you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you should go back and finish that degree, eh Billy Gates?
Honestly, I think this argument can be put to rest. The sales figures do not lie.
While It's nice for you that you are happy with Metro, the interface is not moving computers off the shelves. There are a lot of people who will risk staying with XP, and the security risks that go along with it, rather than switching to Metro.
Windows fan boy or not, there is no arguing that MS has built a flop. Time to move on. The train has left the station.
Apple carved out a new frontier in the small touch screen market with the iOS interface. Then Android came along and also did well in the small touch screen interface market. However, both of these OS's left their desktop version (OS/X and Linux whatever) behind. Different modes of interfacing with hardware drove different interfaces.
People were happy using a traditional desktop on the desktop (Windows was the clear #1 here), and a new interface on their small touch screens. Could you find a few odball users? Sure. For the most part, however, people seem to have no problem using more than one interface. Each interface suited to its environment.
The idea that everyone wants one interface is a problem that does not exist, and is not looking for a solution.
and I like it's idea, a lot. The issue is in implementation.
The need to shore up the consistency, continuity.
The need to adjust conveyance.
Of course they can't shore up the multitude of whiners that hate change, even though it can be logically explained to them why it's technically better.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's bullshit.
And yes, I have written drivers, and application on Linux. Linux has never had a smooth user experiences.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yes, stability problems have been replaced by a UI designed for three year olds and so deficient that it makes Windows 3.1 look like a great leap forward.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
People need to tell Microsoft with their wallets what kind of OS they want to have. If 25 million people decided not to buy anything al all, that would send a pretty message of "either do it right, or dont do it at all...."
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
Funny from a user point of view IOS works just fine with responsiveness. A user noticing latency vs a computer is totally different but you seem to know all the answers.
http://saveie6.com/
Good point!
Compared to Windows development, Linux is like going on vacation, Windows is like standing in a crowded airport for hours with no direction, help or reason.
And has been going on steadily for the last 2 decades?
Will they bring back the start button.
They spent ~20 years training a generation of business computer users that the lower left corner is where to go for the menu.
Their UI was so ubiquitous that they got a key added to almost every keyboard manufactured.
And then for no apparent reason they decided to change it. /governments/ large offices
UI design shininess should really take a backseat to legacy.
When will microsoft realize their real customers are businesses
They aren't going to get the new OEM computer market that they have had in the past because people aren't buying new computers.
They need to adapt to the changing market and their attempt to remake themselves as a integrated tablet environment has failed spectacularly.
Continuing a 3 year release cycle with drastic changes each time requiring huge amounts of emplyee training and modification of legacy apllications is going to kill the business market too.
Sometimes I feel a little sad watching the Redmond death spiral and waiting for the year of the linux desktop.
Always?!
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
Yes it's 32 bit support under 64 bit is horrid at best. I have to run a windows 7 32 bit VM for a LOT of the support software we use for hardware like polycom video conference units.
Many people have no problem running 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows. Heck, most Microsoft apps are still 32-bit (Office, Visual Studio etc), as are most games.
If you had an app that broke on 64 bit, it's likely that it did truly insane things such as hardcoding "C:\Program Files".
Did they call it Threshold because they are anticipating that it will get walked all over ?!
All they have to do is take Windows 7 and draw a little loop, and ta-da, Windows 9! Efficient, stable, and usable by people without touchscreens.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
That's one of my biggest gripes with Metro, most of the tiles are monorchromish. When I look at the apps menu I see a bunch of little squares and text with nothing to distinguish them. Compare that to Mac's Launchpad: it's the same idea, but you get big, colorful, distinctive icons, with small text underneath them. I can easily scan the screen in a couple seconds, with Metro I have to read the text next to every damn icon because most of them aren't distinctive.
I was a Windows user for a couple decades, but MS keeps making it harder not to be an Apple fanboi.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Company with failed product tries to save itself by releasing more of the same
MS has missed the bandwagon, once again, but unlike the other big blunders (*cough* Internet *cough*), this time there are powerful and more importantly, wealthy, competitors around to take advantage of it.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
They should fork the BSD kernel, port the Windows 7 UI to it with the necessary upgrades, and write a Win32 emulation/compatibility mode for legacy apps.
If someone were to release this right now, especially if it was responsive to all of the active directory/GPO management stuff, then Microsoft might lose their grip on corporate desktops; especially if they threw in a few extras like automatic document versioning and backup utilities, or a VMS style file system.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
No, the version of Windows 3.1x that included networking was called "Windows for Workgroups". In all actuality, there were 4 editions of "Windows 3.1" (in order of release): Windows 3.1 (4/1992), Windows for Workgroups 3.1 (10/1992), Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (11/1993), and Windows 3.11 (1/1994).
Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was radical in that it removed Standard Mode (only had 386 Enhanced Mode). Windows 3.11 (vs. "3.10") included a handful of bugfixes but continued to include Standard Mode with a minimum requirement of an 80286.
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
win 7 has never ever crashed on me. i seen win 8 systems self destruct plenty of times.
Windows is the opposite way round to the Star Trek movies - the even numbered ones are crap, right?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I needed a new laptop.. but nobody would sell me one without Windows 8.
So I bought a MacBook Pro (fully loaded).
I'm very satisfied with it (now that the new version supports 16 gb though it still seems a bit low).
MS has done its utmost to drive me away.. I was tough to convince.. but eventually they succeeded.
First they tried with the Ribbon: I stuck to Office 2000 (still use it by the way)
Then they did the XP mess: I waited till Vista/Win7
But Win 8 was an impossible puzzle to solve.. so I got a Macbook and installed Win7 with Parallels. Phew..
I wonder if I'll be able to dodge their next salvo!
Backwards compatibility was never Apple's strength. They could afford to say things like "you'll have to rewrite this app or else it won't work 3 years later".
For Microsoft, backwards compatibility, to the point of emulating bugs in past releases for specific apps that relied on them, was always the major feature, especially for enterprise customers. What you suggest would be incompatible with that - or else require a migration much more costly than anything Apple ever did.
Stop treating your operating system like it's a giant fucking easter egg. Folks want to get work done, not waste time wondering how to do x,y & z
-- Fuck Beta
Remove Modern Interface altogether for PC's and Servers. Leave the Modern interface for smartphones and Tablets. Just do it, you made a mistake, fix it and learn from it.
I think of it as Meh-tro. I suspect Windows 9 will have even more 'meh'
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Windows 9 is ALREADY a miserable failure before it launches.
By going with a single UI for PC/mouse/keyboard AND tablets/phones, they GUARANTEE a UI that's good for NONE of them!
Corporatism != Free Market
A complete redesign from the ground up. I'm talking about making it look more like Linux, but with Windows' support (i.e. everything "just work" 90% of the time). Why is C:\ still the local disk that houses the OS, for example? If they just keep building on top of the same system and adding on to it, eventually Linux will leave them in the dust (specifically when it becomes much more user friendly). Seriously. Just redesign the whole thing to make more sense from a management and browsing perspective (among many other things). Off-topic: Can someone explain to me how to make line-breaks on /.? Shift+Enter and Enter do not do it.
Windows 8 has many positives. Most of the Hate I have seen is mainly with the appearance and people not wanting to change anything. Points to people with flip phones.
Or it talks to hardware and there aren't 64-bit drivers available.
There is some truth here, Windows 8 is smaller and faster than Windows 7 on the same computer. Although I suspect the desktop and core-OS group was busy on that sort of stuff for some time before a marketing genius decided to rebrand the whole thing as a desktop/phone hybrid.
Just add a "Windows Mode" and a "Tablet Mode" switch and bring back the classic Start Menu in Windows Mode. There, now everybody's happy. Heck, even throw in a Hybrid Mode for the ten people who love the current UI.
It seems so simple, doesn't it? I guess that means that Microsoft would never understand the idea.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Here I am, on Windows XP on a netbook that I purchased just 4 years ago and I use just for web and email. I was fuming about being forced to purchase a new OS for XP's EOL in April. I have no wish to touch the steaming pile that is Windows 8, and any flavor of Linux puts my stomach in a knot as the last time I took Debian for a test ride dual boot it took me a better part of a week to figure out how to get my wireless and printers working again.
After taken this soul-searching journey through the viable alternatives, I concluded just a few days ago that the least painful option would be to go to Windows 7. I use that at work and it is fine, close enough to the feel of XP to not be too much of a learning curve, not bloated, does what it is supposed to do.
I almost pulled the trigger and bought Windows 7. But now they are floating hints of Windows 9? So now I have to wonder if I'll have another EOL jammed up my ass shortly if I go with either Windows 7 OR 8.
MS just fucked themselves out of another upgrade sale. I'll ride XP until I actually see another OS that will be around for the lifetime of my hardware.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Welcome to the year like 3000 BC. What the hell? Give the customer what they want and they'll buy it. I think the Greeks knew that. Hell, let's back it up because I bet Sumerian shop owners knew that. Get rid of that awful interface and release Windows 7 with some fancy new modern features that work. Stop mentioning "Xbox" on corporate desktops, get rid of the mobile-y app store garbage, and give people a normal computer that works like a computer.
All I was saying is that any latency that the user experiences has very little to do with kernel design, and much more to do with the UI layer.
The thing is, an OS should be seen and not heard. It's there to manage the system and run your apps SO YOU CAN GET WORK DONE! It shouldn't be like a video game - oh I can't wait to get the next version to see how COOL it looks. I'll take stability over coolness any day. In business environment with many PC's it's more important to keep the OS that works well, and that is familiar, that allows people to - wait for it - TO GET WORK DONE - instead of messing around upgrading PC's every couple months. For goodness sake, our local medical center is just now migrating to Win7 from XP Pro, because it's not about the OS, it's about them running their custom software that WORKS for them.
One basic problem about Windows Me is that its timing was wrong.
THE basic problem about Windows Me is that every computer I saw with it installed on invariably became completely fucked and required a rebuild within a year. I'd replace it with Win2k and the computer would function for years.
Threshold:Win8.1::Win7:Vista?
This Far Side cartoon sums up MS very well. http://www.pinterest.com/pin/128563764335554892/
yet all the forums are full of people complaining that 32 bit support in 7 64 bit is garbage. and it is, I have a small delphi app that fails to run for no apparent reason under 64 bit (no paths at all used) yet under 32 bit it works perfectly.
It's not just paths. There are also various registry hacks that may stop working, or other stupid things like trying to inject your code into explorer.exe.
Why do you think you can buy 32 bit versions of windows 8.1?
Because all those Atom tablets are 32 bit only?
Microsoft is toast, unless is can fully commit to one desktop. Actually, its toast either way, and they must know it. If it sticks with the old desktop, it cannot deliver anything attractive on mobile devices, and if it commits fully to Metro/Modern/Mayhem/Whatever, then it needs to convert its whole back catalogue of applications to that framework - or ditch them. Office is Microsofts' cash cow, but they will have hells' own job of converting Word, Excel etc. to Metro.The Office suite of applications have evolved over many years, on Win32, and just don't fit the lego block mobile paradigm at all. A conversion job like that would suck up huge amounts of resources at a time when they are hoping to forge forward with new advances in mobile and cloud apps and services. Perhaps Ballmer knew they were heading for the buffers at full speed, and that's why he suddenly left the company that he had given most of his adult life to.
I know that Microsoft's secret wish has always been to become Apple (or at least Bill Gates's secret wish!) but this is too much. Now that Apple has been pushing new OSs slam bang one after another, pleeze M$ don't copy that BS.. The very best thing I liked about Microsoft was their long long support timeline for their operathing systems, as opposed to instant "trashability" from Apple.. Hell, I barely install a version of OSX and by the time I've rebooted it's unsupported! I so used to like Apple, but now I feel just terribly betrayed. As in intentionally, by them. I was planning to switch to M$, as I like Windows 7, but if they're going to throw that into the dumpster so soon, then it looks like it's Android OS or something similar. Linux distros are still a mess, sorry. I would have liked to go back to QNX (been a follower of it for 6 or 7 years already) but since BB has it I have no idea what they're going to do to it.... and it never picked up on the importance of Multi Media. BeOS never survived. What a bloody shame.. Haiku is just too underground to ever be a serious alternative. BSD alternatives don't really wxist. If there was one that could run Apple applications I'd be thrilled.. but... Does anyone have a suggestion?
Perhaps Microsoft needs to look at whatit's users want rather than constantly changing to meet a trend that's mainly over by the time it gets to market.
I dunno they seem to have a cycle where incompetent fools drive a release then competent fools fix the problem and are replaced by incompetent fools.
I'd start by shooting the fool who decided that making everything look the same was a good idea.
Unfortunately history suggests the inompetent are becoming more frequent at MS.
Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
Windows 9 should be fairly decent. It seems like Microsoft works on an "every other version" model.. one version will be designed totally by their marketing department, and basically be a flashy but unworkable piece of crap. The next version they actually let the engineers have a go at making something that works in a desperate attempt to save the franchise.
...getting to the "charms" bar. The right hand side of the screens is pretty much the worst place to put anything with a multi-monitor setup. Usually they are stacked horizontally. Apparently MS sent everybody from the desktop UI design brigade off on permanent holidays.
then we will be happy.
If they continue with the frigging Metro, Tile Screen, Charms Bar bullshit, then there could be a spike in the suicide or "heart attack from screaming at your computer" rate within the IT industry.
You know what they should do? They should watch a bunch of users who are not geeks trying to use Windows 8 and they ask themselves the natural question: "WHY THE FUCK DID WE DO THAT! WINDOWS 7 WORKED. EVEN A GRANNY COULD USE IT!".
Skip that boot to desktop business, let's go real old school. Or else create a Metro version of the command prompt.
Can anyone other than Bill Gates pull that off? No. Metro was betting on a "post PC age" where tablets and other gadgets rule the day. But tablets are mainly for consumption of content, not creation, nor any meaningful application such as CAD, Adobe CS suite or even office suites. Until such applications are viable on a sufficiently powerful 'tablet PC' with a large, foldable and/or rollable surface - and sensitive enough for fine grained CAD and office work user input - the keyboard/mouse/graphics tablet input/desktop monitor/PC box configuration is going to be in demand. It's too bad AMD washed up. You force feed the lame metro interface - while apparently scaling back on the continual pursuit of perfecting the windows desktop gui user experience at your own peril Microsoft. Maybe you're the new RIM/Blackberry.
With Ballmer leaving the company and a major reorganization underway, it'll be the next Microsoft CEO's task to make sure that Windows 9 is a hit; in fact, considering that rumored 2015 release date, shepherding the OS could become that executive's first major test."
Actually, it could be both the next executive's first and last test.
Momentum is important, Windows lost momentum. MS will have to beat Google. Can MS do it? (only if they give W9 away for free, as a base version, and sell add-ons. That is my perspective.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
>> it might double down on Windows 8's controversial 'Modern' (previously known as 'Metro') design interface.
I hope they do continue wasting all efforts flogging this dead horse, as yet another flop would do a lot to kill or at least end more dependency on the piece of shit that is Windows.
Um, the apps are not cross compatible
Windows 8 and Windows RT are the same code base, except one is compiled for x86 and the other ARM, and Windows RT blocks the user from changing the code signing policy. Otherwise, if you have a Windows Runtime app running on one, I'm told the other is just a recompile away.
There is a reason I dropped Windows years ago... Linux actually works, and you can make it look/feel any way you like.