Report: Windows 9 Being Prepped For April 2015 Launch
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Also, the latest OS, Mavericks, is free. It works surprisingly well considering that I'm using it on a laptop from 2009.Zachary Amaranth said:
As for the people who refuse to download and install Mavericks, we don't speak about them. Not since they were dragged away into the night.
I'm still using Windows Vista 64-bit, with minimal problems. But I've been meaning to pick up a copy of Windows 7 for the ultimately inevitable next computer. My wife has Windows 8 on her laptop, the newest computer in the house, and it's fine for what she uses the laptop for- mostly web browsing and video watching- but any OS that the computer's builders felt compelled to add a third-party shut down button to is an OS with serious problems. As for me, 8 is any number of things I want nothing to do with- it's designed for tablets and touch-screen interfaces, it makes it more difficult to run multiple apps simultaneously, it wants to control and limit the user's access to their own computer, and it's a move towards a more proprietary stance on what software can be run on it to Microsoft's benefit and the user's detriment. Overall, it's an incredibly arrogant piece of software- a flat-out declaration that despite years of learning how to do things a particular way, everyone should learn to do things a new way because a few GUI engineers at MS think this way is better. And there's plenty of evidence that said engineers were flat-out wrong.
In some ways the stupidest thing is that given how Microsoft has insisted on cutting up its market in the past with versions basic, Home, Business, Ultimate, etc., there was no good reason for them to alienate people so thoroughly. They could have simply offered a Tablet and a Desktop version of 8, recognizing that touch-screen monitors were going to penetrate the market about as much as 3D televisions have their own. But instead, everyone had to conform to Microsoft's vision for the future, even if that vision was dystopian.
Hopefully, with Ballmer's departure, we can get an OS that's less about trying to unite the world of hardware under a Microsoft flag and more about actual user functionality- the sort of functionality that actually inspires that brand loyalty in the first place.
In some ways the stupidest thing is that given how Microsoft has insisted on cutting up its market in the past with versions basic, Home, Business, Ultimate, etc., there was no good reason for them to alienate people so thoroughly. They could have simply offered a Tablet and a Desktop version of 8, recognizing that touch-screen monitors were going to penetrate the market about as much as 3D televisions have their own. But instead, everyone had to conform to Microsoft's vision for the future, even if that vision was dystopian.
Hopefully, with Ballmer's departure, we can get an OS that's less about trying to unite the world of hardware under a Microsoft flag and more about actual user functionality- the sort of functionality that actually inspires that brand loyalty in the first place.
I'm still using XP as my only operating system, gonna get 7 when I build a new computer in the next 2 years or so. I would like to see windows 9 using the interface of 7 with the reduced system usage of 8.
Windows 8 is an abortion of an OS that's trying to be one system that runs on six different devices. Even Apple aren't that stupid.
Windows 9 will only be good if it sticks to being a desktop-patterned OS. If it tries to combine tablet, phone and console OSs into the same thing again then it's going to go on sucking balls.
It's also got to stop alienating technically savvy users. The Secure Boot / UEFI bullshit is fine for people who have no interest in getting under the hood, but occasionally I need to boot from an Ubuntu Live USB and I shouldn't have to change four different BIOS options to do that, and then change them back afterwards. And if I want to change user settings, I want them all to be in one place. My biggest problem with Windows 8 - the one I see as symptomatic of all of its issues - is that you need to go Charms-Settings-Change computer settings-Users to add a user, but Desktop-Control Panel-Users to remove one. There is no reason for a technically competent person to have to go through that faff. Yes, 8.1 has fixed a few things, but it's hilarious that 8.1 and the surely upcoming 8.2 will end up removing almost every single piece of customisation and UI bullshit that 8 tried to add in - at which point, they've spent a whole lot of money fixing something that was never broke in the first place.
Windows 9 will only be good if it sticks to being a desktop-patterned OS. If it tries to combine tablet, phone and console OSs into the same thing again then it's going to go on sucking balls.
It's also got to stop alienating technically savvy users. The Secure Boot / UEFI bullshit is fine for people who have no interest in getting under the hood, but occasionally I need to boot from an Ubuntu Live USB and I shouldn't have to change four different BIOS options to do that, and then change them back afterwards. And if I want to change user settings, I want them all to be in one place. My biggest problem with Windows 8 - the one I see as symptomatic of all of its issues - is that you need to go Charms-Settings-Change computer settings-Users to add a user, but Desktop-Control Panel-Users to remove one. There is no reason for a technically competent person to have to go through that faff. Yes, 8.1 has fixed a few things, but it's hilarious that 8.1 and the surely upcoming 8.2 will end up removing almost every single piece of customisation and UI bullshit that 8 tried to add in - at which point, they've spent a whole lot of money fixing something that was never broke in the first place.
You too? I fucking despised 98.Vivi22 said:Agreed that 95 wasn't that bad and that the chart is missing a few, probably to make its point seem more legitimate. But honestly, from what I remember of 98 I wonder if whoever made that graphic was using the same Windows 98 I was, because I remember it being pretty awful. Freezes, crashes and blue screens were frequent. I'm not sure I ever went more than a few days without having to reboot the damn thing.Owyn_Merrilin said:It also pegs 3.1 as good and 95 as bad. As someone who still periodically loads those two up in virtual machines (mainly for old Windows games that need 16 bit support), 95 was not bad at all. Yes, it was completely full of security holes, but it also came out at a time before the internet became ubiquitous, a time when files were more likely to be shared via floppy disk than modem. And from a user's perspective, 95 was a huge improvement over 3.1, which was really little more than a GUI that sat on top of DOS. 95 did a number of things that DOS couldn't, most notably from the perspective of a gamer, it introduced Direct X, which was a huge, huge thing. 3.1 mostly just made using a computer a bit more intuitive[footnote]It also wasn't the first version of Windows. As the number implies, there was a commercially released Windows 1, 2, and also something called Windows 386, which from what I understand was basically Windows 2 tweaked to better support the features of the then new and powerful Intel 386 processor. There's probably a few other variations I'm forgetting, not even counting stuff like 3.0 and 3.11.[/footnote].A-D. said:That picture is wrong, its missing Win98 Second Edition, Win NT 4.0 and Windows 2000, though the curve would still be correct for the most part.sb666 said:It will be interesting to see if it will follow this cycle.
That being said, it smells like another case of Vista to 7. So maybe Win9 will be the good Win8 essentially, like how 7 is essentially the good Vista version ;P
Basically, the "pattern" has only really existed since Vista turned out to suck, or since ME if you want to ignore that 2000 was a thing.
Yeah. We were using 98 right around the time I hit the age where I was interested in computers and actually learned how to use them for more than opening a web browser or playing the occasional game, but even on those fronts it was the worst OS I'd ever used with all of the crashing. A few years later when we bought a new computer that came with XP I was blown away by how stable it was. Especially by comparison. Things rarely ever just crashed or stopped working on XP, but it was happening to us every other day with 98. I was actually surprised after using it for a few days because I couldn't believe Microsoft programmed something that worked the way it was supposed to.Darth Sea Bass said:
I also avoided Vista and will probably be avoiding Win8 altogether. I don't upgrade my OS unless I have a very good reason to.
Maybe I don't remember it correctly, but I don't remember anything that bad about Win95. It was quite an improvement over Win3.11. I do remember Win98 having a shaky beginning, which was addressed through Windows Update (which many people didn't use yet), and eventually through Win98-SE. I do agree with the rest and hope that Win9 will be the next good Windows OS.sb666 said:It will be interesting to see if it will follow this cycle.
Here's hoping they finally learn that touchscreens only go so far, and are NOT the future of computers. I think MS is trying to eventually herd us all into the virtual workspace, akin to Mass Effect's colourful screens that you flail your arms at, and nobody wants that. I want to move as little as possible, be able to find something without going through a million different menus, and have compatibility with all programs, all the time. Until we're ready to make a LITERAL virtual workspace, where you just put on a pair glasses, stick a cord in your head, and "jack in" to the "net" (or, you know... whatever), let's just stick with the tried and true - keyboard-and-mouse OS's that you DON'T have to mod just for the basic functionalities of the old version.
I've followed the "good" side of the cycle - went from 3.1 to 98 to XP to 7, never had a PC at home running 95, Vista or 8 (though I used the first two on work PCs from time to time, still haven't had any direct contact with Win 8).
Hoping they'll go back to a more conventional interface next time. I won't be in any raging hurry to move from Win 7 anyway, but will no doubt be forced to upgrade eventually.
Hoping they'll go back to a more conventional interface next time. I won't be in any raging hurry to move from Win 7 anyway, but will no doubt be forced to upgrade eventually.
Which doesn't change the fact that it's still a separate OS. Far as I can tell, while there are some ideas integrated from the iOS OS (God does that feel redundant), it's still distinct.TomWiley said:
What you've argued is that other companies are going the way of the MS OS, which still doesn't fit with Dragonbums' claim that MS was going the way of Apple. Quite the opposite, you're indicating that Apple WILL go the way of the MS OS.
It's really fairly simple. Microsoft just has to keep improving on the previous Windows OS's without trying to force something down our throats. Win8 made a lot of advances (I really like the server features and the diagnostics of the "client" OS), but they forced a look and feel when all the previous versions allows skins to be used to emulate previous OS's. They overstepped, significantly, in the name of "This is what the future is...". That's bullshit and will hurt them every time. The clients I've remoted into who have Win8 have custom modded their start button back. Most of my clients stick with win7.
It's just really a bad move to try to force clients on something like this. Remote accessing win8 was also a nightmare for that reason. So reliant on touchscreens and hotkeys that it forgets everyone is moving to remote environments and hotkeys usually don't transfer over when you access a remote site.
So, they really just need a marriage of win7 and win8 and we'll be good. Throw in a few other features and security upgrades and we'll be golden.
It's just really a bad move to try to force clients on something like this. Remote accessing win8 was also a nightmare for that reason. So reliant on touchscreens and hotkeys that it forgets everyone is moving to remote environments and hotkeys usually don't transfer over when you access a remote site.
So, they really just need a marriage of win7 and win8 and we'll be good. Throw in a few other features and security upgrades and we'll be golden.
I ended up using Windows 8.1 at work and I found that it's pretty good. It's certainly no worse than Windows 7, OS X 10.8 or Ubuntu 12.04, all of which I also use at work. There are a number of efficiency gains from the system that were all advertised back in the windows 98 days but weren't really reasonable back then. The system actually does a good job of identifying the libraries I make the most use of and making them easy to access. I would note, however, that I am referring to 8.1. I had to use 8.0 a few times and they had done so much bad to the UI that it felt like they were trying to limit me to using my desktop like a tablet which I just didn't get. I like tablets, but there is a lot that they just can't handle. Why artificially create an environment that is so limited if you don't have to? At any rate, I'll want to wait and see if they're dramatically overhauling things or just making minor tweaks. I'm happy with 7 at home and 8.1 at work.
I agree. Windows 8 is certainly not the antichrist that lots of people make it out to be, but the split personality is just ridiculous. I never felt like I was "adapting" to Windows 7 coming from Windows XP, but Windows 7 to WIndows 8 (I use both, Win7 desk; Win8 laptop) just feels cludgy.votemarvel said:
I recently bought a laptop with Windows 8 installed and was quite surprised to find out that it really is as bad as people claim it to be. I hate the non-optional focus on touchscreens and apps. I really hate the loss of the start button and how f-ing difficult it is to find simple applications. So much control appears to have been taken away (or at least hidden away) from the user. The worst was the amount of time wasted having to constantly switch between the bloody Metro UI and the desktop. Anyway, I nuked the HDD and installed Ubuntu for the first time and am really quite enjoying it. Simple and straightforward.
I'm quite happy with Windows 7 and it looks like it will be the main OS on my desktop for quite some time. However, Ubuntu is a pretty decent substitute. Hopefully things like Steam for Linux will gain some ground in the future.
I'm quite happy with Windows 7 and it looks like it will be the main OS on my desktop for quite some time. However, Ubuntu is a pretty decent substitute. Hopefully things like Steam for Linux will gain some ground in the future.
Microsoft's whole disaster with Windows 8 reminds me of a similar boondoggle from the military-industrial complex back in the '50s and '60s. For some reason, the US military wanted to replace their submachine guns, battle rifles, light machine guns, and marksman rifles with a single standard service rifle. That rifle was the M14, which was too big to be a submachine gun, too overpowered for a battle rifle, and had too small a magazine to work as a light machine gun. The Pentagon learned the hard way that you need different weapons for those different roles, and so they switched to the M16 as a battle rifle (which had its own problems initially, but which were soon worked out), the M4 as a smaller, lighter carbine (submachine guns being obsolete as military weapons by then), and the M240 and M249 as light machine guns. The M14 was kept around only for the one role it excelled at -- a designated marksman rifle.
Today, you've got a similar situation with the Joint Strike Fighter program, an attempt to design one fighter jet for the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines. The Air Force needs a jet that can take off from land-based runways, the Navy needs one that can be launched from and land on carriers, and finally, the Marines need a VTOL jump jet to replace their aging Harrier fleet. A single aircraft design had to take all of those needs into account, and the result is the F-35 Lightning II, which is, by all accounts, an utter dog of an aircraft that's badly outclassed by comparable Russian Sukhoi fighters.
Microsoft is in the same trap that the Pentagon was in with the M14 and the JSF. Say what you will about Apple being the trend-focused "hipster" computer company, but they're smart enough to realize that desktops and laptops need a completely different operating system from smartphones and tablets. Even as they've been earning (much-deserved) mockery for their iDevices, they've also been quietly upgrading OS X for over a decade now, doggedly holding onto their version of the Start button, the menu bar. The new iMacs may look sleek and modern, but they maintain continuity with the old UI and software so that longtime users don't have to relearn everything. They love their flashy gadgetry, but they also know that there's a time and a place for it. Someone high up at Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to have played a bit too much Mass Effect or seen Minority Report one too many times, to the point of risking Windows' status as the OS of choice for business and government in order to push technology for technology's sake, regardless of how it actually works. They think that touchscreens are the future, even though there are many cases where the traditional mouse and keyboard is still superior, and so they load down Windows desktops and the Xbox One with useless bloatware in the name of tech fetishism.
Today, you've got a similar situation with the Joint Strike Fighter program, an attempt to design one fighter jet for the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines. The Air Force needs a jet that can take off from land-based runways, the Navy needs one that can be launched from and land on carriers, and finally, the Marines need a VTOL jump jet to replace their aging Harrier fleet. A single aircraft design had to take all of those needs into account, and the result is the F-35 Lightning II, which is, by all accounts, an utter dog of an aircraft that's badly outclassed by comparable Russian Sukhoi fighters.
Microsoft is in the same trap that the Pentagon was in with the M14 and the JSF. Say what you will about Apple being the trend-focused "hipster" computer company, but they're smart enough to realize that desktops and laptops need a completely different operating system from smartphones and tablets. Even as they've been earning (much-deserved) mockery for their iDevices, they've also been quietly upgrading OS X for over a decade now, doggedly holding onto their version of the Start button, the menu bar. The new iMacs may look sleek and modern, but they maintain continuity with the old UI and software so that longtime users don't have to relearn everything. They love their flashy gadgetry, but they also know that there's a time and a place for it. Someone high up at Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to have played a bit too much Mass Effect or seen Minority Report one too many times, to the point of risking Windows' status as the OS of choice for business and government in order to push technology for technology's sake, regardless of how it actually works. They think that touchscreens are the future, even though there are many cases where the traditional mouse and keyboard is still superior, and so they load down Windows desktops and the Xbox One with useless bloatware in the name of tech fetishism.
You want every service pack ranked, too?A-D. said:
Come on, even if we included all the fluff it would still be Win95(bad)-Win95 OSR2(goodish)-Win 98(bad)-Win 98 SE(good)
You also cannot count NT (and by extension 2000 because it was just NT with a different name) because they were NOT part of the same line of operating systems. If we include NT then we should also include DOS and Windows CE, and that's just silly.
I was actually going to ask that, but I stuck with Windows XP for a while, especially when Vista came out.sb666 said:It will be interesting to see if it will follow this cycle.
Microsoft might actually be listening to gamers here. Windows 9 could be a fairly cheap, open source OS with stronger capabilities than ever; that would provide serious competition against the Steam machines and the predicted rise of Linux.
Or it might just be Windows 7 with 8's new features. One can dream.
Or it might just be Windows 7 with 8's new features. One can dream.