1 recommendation |
chachazz
Premium Member
2014-Jan-11 11:08 pm
[News] Windows 9 - April 2015quote: At the BUILD developer conference in April 2014, Microsoft will discuss its vision for the future of Windows, including a year-off release codenamed "Threshold" that will most likely be called Windows 9. Here's what I know about the next major release of Windows.
Paul Thurrott - Supersite |
|
|
That probably means no 8.2, and no free upgrade either.... |
|
Racerbob Premium Member join:2001-06-24 Webster, NY ·Frontier FiberOp..
1 recommendation |
to chachazz
Back on Win 7 as my main OS. Will stay with it as long as I can. It just feels right and does everything that I need it to do. Yes, I know ... Classic Shell on Win 8.1. Been there and done that. I still prefer Win 7. But it will be interesting as usual to see what Windows 9 is all about because usually every other operating system Microsoft bats one out of the park and produces a winner. We shall see. |
|
Robert Premium Member join:2001-08-25 Miami, FL 1 edit
4 recommendations |
Robert
Premium Member
2014-Jan-12 11:14 am
Me too. Windows 7 is perfect. And if history repeats itself, so will Windows 9.
Win 95 = Nope Win 98 = Yep Win Me = Nope Win XP = Yep Win Vista = Nope Win 7 = Yep Win 8 = Nope Win 9 = Yep .. Maybe |
|
Dustyn Premium Member join:2003-02-26 Ontario, CAN ·Carry Telecom ·TekSavvy Cable Asus GT-AX11000 Technicolor TC4400
2 recommendations |
to Racerbob
Yeah,... I agree. I have another PC that has Windows 8. When I purchased the computer it came with Windows 8 with free upgrade to Windows 8.1. The first thing I did was install Start8 which made a huge difference and disabled all the Metro stuff. Much much better as it's as close to Windows 7 as I can get. I don't get the Windows 8.1 Metro stuff... it's just not needed on a desktop. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to Robert
I could see no significant difference between Win 98 and Win Me; not even as much as between Win Vista and Win 7.
Win XP is not of the Win 9x lineage. While Microsoft may have marketed Win XP as a successor, Win XP is a continuation of the Windows NT family; the Win 9x family is GUI integrated with MS DOS. |
|
DownTheShorePray for Ukraine Premium Member join:2003-12-02 Beautiful NJ |
to Robert
said by Robert:Me too. Windows 7 is perfect. And if history repeats itself, so will Windows 9.
Win 95 = Nope Win 98 = Yep Win Me = Nope Win XP = Yep Win Vista = Nope Win 7 = Yep Win 8 = Nope Win 9 = Yep .. Maybe Win 95 - My first "modern" computer had this Win ME - My second computer had this Win XP - Had it briefly, laptop died after 3 months so it doesn't count Win Vista - My third computer had this Win 8 - My fourth computer has this I am the poster girl for the Windows' "bad" OSes - LOL! |
|
sivranVive Vivaldi Premium Member join:2003-09-15 Irving, TX
2 recommendations |
to Racerbob
The whole "every other OS" myth is just that. Windows XP was a real dog when it came out. Win98 "first edition" was too. Win ME was actually not bad--if you were a new user not dragging along legacy gear. And then there's Windows 2000. |
|
Kilroy MVM join:2002-11-21 Saint Paul, MN
1 recommendation |
Kilroy
MVM
2014-Jan-13 9:29 am
Actually, it is more like Intel's tick-tock upgrade cycle. The every other is a minor change and people have no issues going to it. The ones users have a big problem with are the major changes. Most people don't like change.
Most of my issues have been driver related, Windows 2000 (no 3D driver support), Windows ME (buggy drivers), Windows 8 (no RAID drivers available on release). I used Windows 2000 at work and didn't have any issues with it. Windows ME was just too buggy in general. I'm using Windows 8 on my media machine, but Windows 7 on my main machine. I doubt I'll go to Windows 8 on my main machine as I don't see a good reason. If I update my SSD to a larger size I'll install Windows 8. If not I'll wait until the next version comes out and install Windows 9 on release day. |
|
Sentinel Premium Member join:2001-02-07 Florida |
to sivran
I agree. Win 95 was freaking awesome after having to deal Windows 3.1 and DOS. I was a very happy camper at that time. |
|
BlitzenZeusBurnt Out Cynic Premium Member join:2000-01-13 |
I liked Dos, I used dos before Windows came along, and Win 3.x sucked for games so you still had to run them in dos most of the time. Even with Win9x you tended to had to run dos games in outside of Win 9x, however in those days Windows was nothing more than a dos application. It wasn't until NT that Windows was the operating system, but compatibility problems showed for older programs. What was good, and bad about Win 95 was it didn't have IE included, however those were times were you had to buy your browser, otherwise get it from your isp on disk. After it was obviously how much of a security risk IE was even if you never used it, I would of rather had Win 95 with IE never installed.
As far as the proposed Win 9 goes, it might be like Win 7, how people didn't like Vista, yet Win 7 was basically Vista SP2 with a few minor improvements, yet people loved it. I don't think metro is going anywhere, but they might have pulled their head out of their ass to realize that metro was not the desired desktop users wanted, however they could have just listened to the beta users, news outlets, and even preview release users.... We'll just get another more refined metro like you can almost completely avoid metro in 8.1 now after you change a few settings.
Even my friend who has an xbox 360 doesn't want to buy an xbox one. |
|
Matt7 join:2001-01-02 Columbus, OH
1 recommendation |
to Sentinel
said by Sentinel:I agree. Win 95 was freaking awesome after having to deal Windows 3.1 and DOS. I was a very happy camper at that time. Windows 95 OSR2 was really stable for me. Same with Windows 98 SE. I am also having success with a Vista Ultimate machine that has the latest service pack for Vista. All operating systems that are dramatic changes seem to have issues at first. |
|
|
DownTheShorePray for Ukraine Premium Member join:2003-12-02 Beautiful NJ |
It becomes a matter of what quirks you can live with without them annoying you all the time. WinME was a heck of a lot more stable that Win95 was, and ditto Vista in comparison to WinME. The BSOD virtually disappeared with Vista, so that was wonderful. |
|
1 recommendation |
to chachazz
quote: Thurrott says theres a great sense of urgency surrounding the new release because 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. [...] Thurrott says that it will be Microsofts attempt to basically airbrush Windows 8 out of the publics memory, which is why Microsoft will likely brand it as Windows 9.
» bgr.com/2014/01/13/micro ··· se-date/I still think that aside from the UI (which, however, can be *exceedingly* irritating at times) there's nothing wrong with Win8, and this could've been mostly avoided by providing an option to rum Win8 with a Win7 like interface without 3rd party utilities. |
|
Wily_One Premium Member join:2002-11-24 San Jose, CA |
to Robert
said by Robert:Win 95 = Nope Win 98 = Yep Win Me = Nope Win XP = Yep Win Vista = Nope Win 7 = Yep Win 8 = Nope Win 9 = Yep .. Maybe There was nothing "wrong" with Win95 per se; it was light years ahead of 3.1/3.11. Was Win98 better? Yes. Win98SE then was better still. All improvements on the original. Your list omits the corporate lines of NT and 2K. NT 4.0 was the King for a long time. |
|
Wily_One
3 recommendations |
to aurgathor
But the problem with Win8 is the GUI. Not just the "metro" tile interface but all the associated changes. They've dumbed it down so much they actually made it harder to use instead of easier.
Microsoft decided to take what works and cast it aside, and now they're seeing the consequences of resistance, low adoption rates and poor sales. I'm sure the news is correct that they're scrambling to get "9" out the door as fast as possible. |
|
MadnessLike a flea circus at a dog show join:2000-01-05 Lynn, MA ·DSL EXTREME
1 recommendation |
I'm running W7HP & see nothing wrong w/ it. Tried 8, hated Metro (!!!), but also the loss of Aero & those garish window colors (even in desktop mode). Hell, up until about 4 years ago, I was still running XP. That was on the first PC I ever built myself (around '03).
But, I have used nearly everything back to DOS (& even OS/2). And to this day, I still have the first 486 PC I ever bought (~21 years ago), which, today, is my retro gaming machine. After all, old DOS games are OK on things like DOSBox, but there's nothing like playing on actual vintage hardware! |
|
sivranVive Vivaldi Premium Member join:2003-09-15 Irving, TX |
to Wily_One
What's harder in 8? |
|
HarryH3 Premium Member join:2005-02-21 |
HarryH3
Premium Member
2014-Jan-14 10:13 am
said by sivran:What's harder in 8? A few that are glaringly obvious, though I've only used Win 8.x sparingly on a test system. The VPN software that I use daily won't even install on 8, rendering 8 useless for me. Shut down. Win 7: 2 clicks. Win 8: 4 clicks AFTER first bringing up the ever-annoying charms bar in 8. Close a program. (For example, the weather app in 8) Win 7: Click the X on the window. Done. Win 8: Go back to start screen, hover mouse in upper left corner of screen, wait for icon to appear, right-click icon and select close. I find myself having to go through a lot more steps to do many things in 8. I read the "just type what you want" replies, but they ignore that the result is sometimes "Nothing Found" unless I click another "grouping" of stuff that 8 found. Try to find Windows Update and see just what things 8 wants to install. It takes all sorts of extra steps that 7 doesn't have. MS really tried to hide the whole update process from the user. Another oddity I discovered. On a fresh 8.1 install, MS wanted to install 1.2GB of updates. So I started the updates, but I couldn't find an Update Status window in Metro. I KNEW the files were downloading, by the network activity. So I went over to Desktop mode and looked at Windows Update there. It had no idea that the updates were already being installed from the Metro side of things. It showed the same updates as "available", yet had no indication that the updates were already in progress. Just because something is "new and improved" doesn't mean that it is actually better. |
|
darciliciousCyber Librarian Premium Member join:2001-01-02 Forest Grove, OR ·Ziply Fiber
|
said by HarryH3:Close a program. (For example, the weather app in 8) Win 7: Click the X on the window. Done. Win 8: Go back to start screen, hover mouse in upper left corner of screen, wait for icon to appear, right-click icon and select close. OR: Win 8: Drag the mouse from the top of the screen to the bottom of the screen and release. |
|
BlitzenZeusBurnt Out Cynic Premium Member join:2000-01-13 |
Which is a tablet movement.... The hidden start button, and charm bar only added more clicks to the desktop user to do the same thing. The shutdown menu under settings? What brain dead moron thought of that?
I used alt+f4 at first, and still use alt+f4 to close metro apps or they stay in memory. |
|
Kilroy MVM join:2002-11-21 Saint Paul, MN |
Kilroy
MVM
2014-Jan-14 11:27 am
I cheated and made a shortcut on the desktop pointing to:
shutdown -s -t 1 |
|
darciliciousCyber Librarian Premium Member join:2001-01-02 Forest Grove, OR |
to BlitzenZeus
And still quicker than what was originally posted. What difference does it make if you can do it with your finger or your mouse? |
|
BlitzenZeusBurnt Out Cynic Premium Member join:2000-01-13 |
Open a half a dozen metro apps, if you still have that many installed, and pull them down with your mouse. They're still in the background in task manager using memory, and I'm not talking about live tiles. Alt+f4 closes them, and frees the memory. If you click on the X of a desktop program it should no longer be using any memory, or running in the background. |
|
darciliciousCyber Librarian Premium Member join:2001-01-02 Forest Grove, OR ·Ziply Fiber
|
said by BlitzenZeus:They're still in the background in task manager using memory Ah, now that I didn't know. Thanks. |
|
AsherN Premium Member join:2010-08-23 Thornhill, ON |
to darcilicious
said by darcilicious:And still quicker than what was originally posted. What difference does it make if you can do it with your finger or your mouse? You may not always have the room to do the complete mouse movement. |
|
DownTheShorePray for Ukraine Premium Member join:2003-12-02 Beautiful NJ |
to HarryH3
Two clicks to shut down in Win 8.1 with Classic Shell:
|
|
HarryH3 Premium Member join:2005-02-21
2 recommendations |
HarryH3
Premium Member
2014-Jan-14 2:25 pm
said by DownTheShore:Two clicks to shut down in Win 8.1 with Classic Shell: But we're not talking about Classic Shell (Which by the way, does what? Oh yeah, makes Win 8 behave like Win 7. Like the dumba$$es at MS should have done in the first place.) |
|
DownTheShorePray for Ukraine Premium Member join:2003-12-02 Beautiful NJ |
Yes, but the amount of "extra" clicks is constantly being thrown up in various threads as if it is some insurmountable obstacle that should prevent people from adopting Win 8/8.1, which it isn't. Actually, in regards to the Start Menu, Classic Shell makes it behave like Win 95. And to access Windows Update, there's an entry for it right in the Control Panel; very easy to find. Sure MS should have done some things differently, but that can be said for each iteration of Windows. |
|
AsherN Premium Member join:2010-08-23 Thornhill, ON |
to DownTheShore
said by DownTheShore:Two clicks to shut down in Win 8.1 with Classic Shell: But you are relying on something that could stop working after any given patch. may be acceptable on your own system, it is not in a corporate environment. |
|