Slashdot Mirror
What To Expect With Windows 9
snydeq writes: Two weeks before the its official unveiling, this article provides a roundup of what to expect and the open questions around Windows 9, given Build 9834 leaks and confirmations springing up all over the Web. The desktop's Start Menu, Metro apps running in resizable windows on the desktop, virtual desktops, Notification Center, and Storage Sense, are among the presumed features in store for Windows 9. Chief among the open questions are the fates of Internet Explorer, Cortana, and the Metro Start Screen. Changes to Windows 9 will provide an inkling of where Nadella will lead Microsoft in the years ahead. What's your litmus test on Windows 9?
Deal with it.
Unballmering Windows
Seriously, give me transparency, name it whatever you want, just give it to me. I don't want your flat color bs.
then it may be worth taking a serious look at. After all, MS seems to get every other major version right.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
How my users react to it. I demoed 8 to my users, and got a resounding "HELL NO", due entirely to the start screen. They weren't buying it, and I don't blame them.
Given the leaks so far, I expect my users will be onboard with the new version ( possibly with some grumbling about the "look" ). But I won't really know until I get it in front of them for some feedback.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Rather than creeping you out by peering over your shoulder waiting for you too blunder so he can offer unsolicited advice instead He just sits there and serenades you with the Beatles song "Number Nine" until ask him a question
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Windows 9 will be interesting, and will break all kinds of things like every other upgrade does.
But Server 2012 is unusable. R2 improved it, but they clearly hate their customers.
1. Why does a Server install have boxes called "this PC" to click on. Just bring back "My Briefcase" and get it over with you lazy pieces of crap.
2. Why does it have a snazzy new front end that then puts back up screens we had in Windows 3.1?
3. I will cut the bitch that decided to use URLs for error messages, but not have them as active links so you could follow them.
I wasted hours of my life trying to make .Net3.5 install on 2012 because a vendor swore they wouldn't support R2, but had to have 3.5. I finally just did R2 and told them it was that or no .Net. If Microsoft didn't want me to install .Net 3.5, they shouldn't have made it the top feature in the list to install. Hide it. Make it separate. Something. But top in the list, incapable of installing saying it can't find media no matter what you do with copying files locally, powershell/DISM/whatever? Bite me you no-testing-code-shipping pieces of crap!
But I'm not bitter.
My mom says I'm cool.
One word answer: "Disappointment"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Anyone that does freelance IT work knows that this means $$$. Hell I'm still counting the money from WinXP's death. Yehaa!
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I evaluate new software primarily based on two areas.
1) What do I gain with the new software? Currently running Windows 7, what do I get that helps make my life more productive with Windows 9? Thusfar, I see nothing. From Windows 8 to 9, yeah, I can see the improvement, but so far it is simply "improved" to the point of reverting back to what 7 already has.
2) What do I lose with the new software? From the current leaks, Windows 9 is just as ugly as Windows 8 desktop mode. The Win8/9 UI looks like Windows 3.1. They've switched back to centering title bar text from the previous decade+ of left-align title bar text. They've taken the UI from the clean and modern Aero Glass and turned it into flat colors just like Windows 3.1. The OS as a whole is simply less visually appealing.
So, the question still remains: WHY SWITCH!?
You don't choose between workspaces and physical screens, you just have multiple physical screens so that each workspace can be even larger and more pleasant to use...
You do eventually run into diminishing returns; but being able to display more than one monitor worth of stuff simultaneously definitely has its uses, and is something that being able to switch between workspaces, be the transition ever so elegant, cannot replace.
Interesting fact but this isn't new to Windows either. Win2k and maybe even earlier had native multidesktop support. They just didn't ship a default front end for it but they've had a free tool available for years that let you set it up.
That is not envy.... That confusion as to why that dork over there is trying to use a tablet as if it was a real computer.
You put your grubby mits on my nice clean monitor and you're pulling back a bloody stump.
Are you fucking people blind? Smears and fingerprints drive me nuts!
Yet another year of windows 7 on the desktop to be precise.
Microsoft tried it already with 8. REALLY really tried it with 8, removing 7 from everywhere it only could.
It was a disaster. PC sales crashed. As we discovered, forcing 8 on people did result in marginal increase of sales of 8, and a massive reduction of sales in PCs.
Finally someone important at microsoft realised that in winning the battle of 8's adoption over 7, they were losing the war of keeping PCs being the primary customer computing platform, and 7 was quickly pushed back into OEM chain. I think that this particular lesson was painful enough for microsoft not to even think of trying it again for at least a few years.
Its a sysinternals tool, called "Desktops". Apparently it works on XP, as well. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/cc817881.aspx
It is very limited, however. You cannot drag windows between virtual screens.
yea I always found it funny that *nix systems had as many desktops as I wanted, but nothing worth running on them, windows had all the software I wanted to run, but constantly ran out of space (not counting desktops.exe)
Windows 8.x
You do realize desktop Linux distros have been unbelievably easy to install (or even run from a Live CD) for the last decade or so don't you? Nobody has been "forced" into using Windows just because it happened to ship as the default for a very long time.
That's like telling someone that "a space shuttle is really easy to use, someone on the ground actually presses the "launch" button for you!"
Sure, automated initial installs have been all wrapped up in little wizard-like packages. That's not the point, it's the ongoing installation and management of packages and versions and such that you have to keep up on.
I get Linux, I do. I have used it on spare PC's before. But I just don't have time to use it on my main machines, because while I'd love that much time to tinker around and do all kinds of clever things with it to hone it to be the ultimate OS for me - I just don't have that kind of time to spend on it consistently. You have to "keep up" with Linux as a hobby way too much for folks that just need to get tasks done on a PC when they sit at it (especially with tablets in the picture, as for a lot of us we spend a lot less time tied to larger machines since we do a lot of consumption that way now).
It's one of those things that I'm glad it's there, I wish I had time - and maybe someday, but since I don't install crap on my PC and I don't go to sketchy websites (well aside from this one LOL), and I take a modicum of security precautions, I do OK with Windows. I never have to ask if I can run something on my machine, why I buy a product that can connect to a PC via USB or network (camera, Blu-ray, etc.) I never have to wonder if the driver software will work for me or if I'll have to spend hours hoping to get it working with whatever I can scrounge up, I never have to search out solutions around how to do what I want, etc.
In the end, yeah, Windows, yuck, but deal-able, and it's really disingenuous to pretend that because they have dumb downed the initial install package to Windows levels, that the actual ongoing user experience of Linux is nearly that plug and play for most folks, so to speak.
Holy crap. First I've heard of Cortana. Googled it.. Is that for real??? It looks like Seven of Nine got fucked by Bob and this is the offspring. I can already see the protests from middle America. "Electronic boobies from Satan are sending us to Hell". How could anybody think that's a good idea?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I want an OS that:
1) Doesn't attempt to hide the workings of my computer from me -- in particular, don't hide the way that paths and directories really work. (As a bonus: remove the spaces from system directories, dammit, because I get real tired of escaping them when I access my NTFS partition from a real OS.)
2) When something goes wrong tell me what the fuck it was. "The internet connection has limited connectivity" doesn't tell me a damn thing. "DHCP timeout" tells me something. Include both messages, by all means, for the benefit of Grandma -- but Grandma likely can't fix her internet connection on her own anyway.
3) Don't be patronizing. Copying .mp3's to a phone shouldn't give a "Your phone might not be able to play this file, copy anyway?" message, and there are a thousand things like that in Windows.
4) Get rid of file locking, or at least allow an override. I can decide whether a file is sufficiently "in use" that I shouldn't delete it.
5) Don't attempt to push other MS products (cloud services, "stores", and the like) on me, and don't keep spewing Windows Media Player etc. icons around after I delete them once.
I find it funny that MS is now the only major OS vendor that isn't running on a UNIX base. Seems like an uphill struggle as the world passes them by. They should do an Apple and virtualise the old Windows code in a classic environment and switch to a UNIX base. Or just stop trying to make operating systems altogether and focus on software.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
I can give you a few...
SSDs under WinXP gradually degrade in performance, because XP doesn't support SSD TRIM. On Win7, this is not an issue, so you don't have to wipe / reset the SSD / restore the operating system once a year.
Graphics performance of video drivers - I gained 20-30% performance switching from XP 32bit to Win7 64bit on the same machine, maybe even doubled performance. This was back when I multi-boxed EVE Online - I went from struggling to run 3 windows (at least one would only get 15-20 FPS), to being able to have 5-6 open (all with 40+ FPS).
The 32bit limit of 3-something GB of RAM is a bit limiting when Firefox is chewing up 500-800MB, Thunderbird is chewing up another few hundred MB, and a handful of other background tasks chewing up 40-50MB each. Moving to Win7 meant I could put in 8GB of RAM on the box, and make use of it.
Multi-tasking performance is just better in Win7 when compared to XP. Less hiccups / pauses / other strange slowdowns.
The window preview as you hover over the tasks in the task bar is addictive. Being able to see thumbnails of each application window makes it easier to pick which window to bring forward (another bonus for multi-taskers).
A bit more resilient then XP to being infected - not perfect, but a definite step forward.
We run Linux on the servers, but I'm quite happy running either OS X or Win7 on the desktops. Both get the job done well enough and stay out of the way.
(Running Win7 on a 2007-era Thinkpad T series, 8GB RAM, pair of SSDs, and only a dual-core Intel CPU.)
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
I presume you installed a 10+ year old Linux version so that it would be a fair comparison with XP?
Oh get over yourself, nobody is "shilling". The reality is that nobody cares about an OS, it exists purely to run applications so even if you have the technically best and technically most advanced operating system ever created it is utterly useless unless it can run the programs that people need to run to accomplish the tasks that they need the computer for. Windows - and in large part OS X - accomplish this on the desktop for the vast majority of people, Linux accomplishes this largely on servers and smartphones. Windows fails at this on smartphones and Linux fails at it on desktops.
Nobody is saying Windows is a superior operating system to OS X or Linux from a technical perspective - in fact I don't think you'll find an overall winner in any category - but from the perspective of being a desktop operating system, by and large it is. Just as Android and iOS are on smartphones and Linux is on servers.