windows 9 recent leaks, all the details so far

[givingtnt]

so desktop is back???

its allways have been there .....

[Science23]

Windows 98- alright | Windows xp - Great Finally finished windows 98! | Windows vista - Absolute crap! | Windows 7 - A fixed version of vista | Windows 8 - Is this just for money now? | Windows 9 - Finished windows 8?

[RH00D]

Really dude, how about sticking to the subject and not going off  pontificating one a different topic than what the thread is about. I can list all the great advances of an OS has has but if it has nothing to do with the thread its just trolling.

 

:rolleyes:

Of course I cannot show similar information for Windows 9 yet because that information for Windows 9 has not been published/made available yet. You were making statements that there is only petty or small changes between Windows 8.x and Windows 9 because of the screenshots so I showed what the differences were between 7 and 8 to show that what you see in screenshots only accounts for a very small amount of changes between OS versions.

[GoodBytes]

Windows 98- alright | Windows xp - Great Finally finished windows 98! | Windows vista - Absolute crap! | Windows 7 - A fixed version of vista | Windows 8 - Is this just for money now? | Windows 9 - Finished windows 8?

Oh you are trying to be cleaver, but Windows 98 was very buggy and had stupid bugs such as the inability to clear memory.

So if you open a location with a bunch of folders, And you Do Ctrl+A Enter, to select them all and open, then you close them, then you repeat (or not, depending on how much memory uyou have in the system, you need repeat this).. boom out of memory. Now, folder, despite all closed, can't be opened, right-click menu appears with missisng and drawing issues. This is just the tip of the ice berg. The reason why people like Window s98, was that 3 years after Windows 95, computers manufacture and the industry started to release more powerful systems, and the consumer was choosing better systems instead of using their old Windows 3.1 system, and trying to force Win95 inside.

Windows XP was hatted beyond belief at release. It needed new computers to run, modern (at the time) hardware, and was buggy.. a lot.

Also Windows XP security was so awful, that Microsoft knew it could not hold up, they scrap XP, and started from scratch pretty much. A massive undertaking that took 6 years to develop (and probably a bit rushed at released due to investors impatience). In fact the reason why XP existed, an OS released about 1 year after XP, was mainly because of MacOS X, where it had a nice modern look to it, and didn't look like boring gray (which was initially done to impact less the system resources and CPU). I can go more in details.

As for Vista... if you had the specs, Vista was running perfectly fine, especially after SP1, and it offered a great experience. Install Vista now, and you'll see. Sure it's not Win7 (obviously), but its perfectly usable, and faster and more responsive than XP. It is not Microsoft fault if you decided to take your system that could barely run XP, and installed Vista on, or installed it on a system that doesn't meet the full system requirements (that is above "recommended" for proper smooth experience, much like in games specs), or just purchased a system with the incorrect hardware (example: bought a laptop with Intel integrated graphics (Or Via or S3 solutions), which at the time, just started to play 1080p video somewhat smoothly, and just started to support (but had a very hard time) handling alpha blending)

[FatalityDiablo]

its allways have been there .....

true, true.

[deathjester]

Only "feature" I care about. The 100 dollar Direct X patch/Microsoft gaming tax. Hopefully it doesn't cost 100 dollars and is put on Win 7 so that game developers actually use it. See DX 11.2 as an example of what happens when the OS is not majority share.  It is a dead API, just like DX 12 will be if Windows doesn't stop putting API updates behind a giant paywall every couple years.

 

New I.E.? Don't care. Apple Store? No. New crappy movie maker/media player, I will never use. No. DRM? Horrid... Making it look more like win 7, minus aero? Hooray for somewhat listening to customers and doing what third party programs like Start is Back already did, and somehow needing a "new OS" to do that. 

 

Hey maybe it will at least boot a second faster than the last Windows, cus sleep apparently doesn't exist. Faster boot and some artificial limits on older OS's API, and some mediocre included software that most people don't use seems like a bargain!

 

Oh and I forgot. False claims about it being a more secure OS than the last iteration, blah blah, like they do with every new version, even though MS brass tells you security essentials basically sucks and you should get a real antivirus program.

[deviant88]

Please stop acting stupid. You are better than this.

You perfectly know that this is a leaked build screen shots, and we don;t even know if it's 6 month old or yesterday's build (if any), and Microsoft is keeping everything under wraps.

You know that September 30th is when Microsoft will announce the Preview of Windows 9, meaning in development/alpha builds, and it will be obviously unpolished, buggy, and only less than a handful of feature available. And throughout the preview cycle, every now and then, new features will be released, numerous updates will be released, improves things, bug fix, and so on. Usually the back end stuff is done at this point (that means the API are done, kernel level changes and improvements, and so on, but not or not all implementations of the APIs to make a feature, or is incomplete, or is ready, but not ready enough to be publicly available in the preview), and the basic testing stages are done. The GUI is about ~10% of what an OS is, hence why it is kept last.

Guess im just being realistic cause everyone is like "OMG start menu", "OMG new windows",what the hell guys.

Im just not the "hype train" guy.I actually was thinking to upgrade as soon as W9 comes out next year,but i still dont see anything i want in there,or any new feature to blow my mind.

And op is like "omg so many features" when all you can see in screenshots is UI cheap revamp and start menu.

We will see by next month i guess but its frustrating,people should demand more than a start menu in a new win thats going to cost 150$ in my country at least.

For those who will torrent/crack it anyway it wont even matter cause who cares its new and free,aka good enough.

[sebastiatyy]

Multiple desktops....Apple? Anyone?

[Dan1992]

Did they remove the window borders? Looks nice.

Also, I see no real advantage in that small, cramped start menu. If I look for a program, I don't need to see the desktop and can as well have the whole screen to display them.

[RH00D]

Guess im just being realistic cause everyone is like "OMG start menu", "OMG new windows",what the hell guys.

Im just not the "hype train" guy.I actually was thinking to upgrade as soon as W9 comes out next year,but i still dont see anything i want in there,or any new feature to blow my mind.

And op is like "omg so many features" when all you can see in screenshots is UI cheap revamp and start menu.

We will see by next month i guess but its frustrating,people should demand more than a start menu in a new win thats going to cost 150$ in my country at least.

For those who will torrent/crack it anyway it wont even matter cause who cares its new and free,aka good enough.

Because these are just leaked screenshots still very far away from actual release. It's already been stated multiple times that GUI changes are always the last thing to be changed in the development cycle.

 

Microsoft has not officially unveiled the OS in any way whatsoever, that is why we know almost nothing about new features or improvements. All we have to go off of are these screenshots, which show very little, and rumors.

 

There are always massive changes between OS releases. My post here detailed the changes between Windows 7 and 8. The changes between 8 and 9 will likely be just as extensive. http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/213178-windows-9-desktop-screenshot-leaks-lots-of-new-features/page-6#entry2914543

[joshmessmer]

Finally, a good first-party virtual desktop option.

I also really like the new start menu. The one in windows 8 even was a good idea, just horribly executed. Widgets that are easily accessible though, and done in this new manner, where they're pinned to the side of the windows 7 start menu is awesome. Besides unifying Xbox (would should really be considered Windows TV), Windows Phone, and Desktop with a common UI element (in a better way, I think, than apple), the metro menu is super useful. I could quickly check weather, peek in on my RSS, or us to-do lists and whatnot.

The new heirarchy on the start menu is nice too. Instead of having power/restart/sleep options at the bottom and my user setting at the top,  both are positioned in the top left resembling a website with profile and sign out options.

Colour palette and design asthetic are nice too. Both Microsoft and Google are doing a great job with making a flat design language with their own unique styles, where-as apple seems to be struggling.

 

Can't wait for Windows 9 (which I heard might just be called Windows).

[ZephrFish]

any news if there are going to be any isos leaked?

[GoodBytes]

Did they remove the window borders? Looks nice.

Also, I see no real advantage in that small, cramped start menu. If I look for a program, I don't need to see the desktop and can as well have the whole screen to display them.

No no no, something might happen on the back... It is critical to be able to monitor what is going on the screen at ALL times. I might be looking at temperature of my CPU, if I have this thing taking all over the screen. B00M! CPU might be 300 degree Celsius and my computer is dead just like that. That is also why I need to have CPU and GPU stats overlay in my games. I can't just enjoy a game. I need to constantly monitor the temperature and load. I need to quickly be able to take action before my computer explodes like a Michael Bay explosion effect, which might occur.

Note:

That is a just a joke.. referring of the none nonsensical arguments being done when Win8 came out. I get what they were trying to say, on how it is 2 worlds, and that the default layout is uninviting, but the point given was really not good. Of course, I am guilty of this. And also, taking a small hit on people that always monitors computer stats in games... I get it, when it's for debugging, or testing it out, but when your system is OK, it's ok, enjoy the game. Stop worrying.

[IdeaStormer]

Of course I cannot show similar information for Windows 9 yet because that information for Windows 9 has not been published/made available yet. You were making statements that there is only petty or small changes between Windows 8.x and Windows 9 because of the screenshots so I showed what the differences were between 7 and 8 to show that what you see in screenshots only accounts for a very small amount of changes between OS versions.

 

The only info shown so far is the bedazzling, so that's all we have to go by and we (those already posting strictly about Win 9) are sticking to what this thread is about, you continue to toss in irrelevant info. I mean why not show the difference between Windows 3.1 and XP while your at it? :wacko:

[RH00D]

The only info shown so far is the bedazzling, so that's all we have to go by and we (those already posting strictly about Win 9) are sticking to what this thread is about, you continue to toss in irrelevant info. I mean why not show the difference between Windows 3.1 and XP while your at it? :wacko:

It seems the point of my post has gone way over your head... (That most changes between OS versions are non-visual, something that cannot be "seen" in a screenshot) Sorry that you are incapable of comprehending what I am conveying to you.

[deathjester]

It seems the point of my post has gone way over your head... (That most changes between OS versions are non-visual, something that cannot be "seen" in a screenshot) Sorry that you are incapable of comprehending what I am conveying to you.

 

Too bad the list you made from 7 to 8 is pretty laughable. About the only noticeable increase with programs people actually use? Boot up speed. Good to see you are defending all things MS and belittling people who don't see a massive difference in productivity or performance (because there is none). 

 

Game performance same. Rendering with Vegas. Same. Video playback? Are you kidding with this? Who has a problem with Video playback. The Direct X improvements to other areas is artificial and could have been a patch to 7. Add to that DirectX 11.2 is a dead API that is used for ZERO games, due to Microsoft's greed, keeping it off the majority OS install base. Game developers are not going to target minority share and if anything MS is holding back PC gaming by putting DirectX upgrades behind a paywall. 

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/07/23/hardware-accelerating-everything-windows-8-graphics.aspx

 

Blah blah. 100 dollars for a Direct X patch and faster boot. That is pretty much all anyone got out of a Win 8 upgrade, and they had to download a third party program like Start is Back to even like the OS.  The OS is uglier and people like Slick have said this (lack of Win 7 like Aero), so you get a faster boot time for an uglier OS. The only game that ran better was BF4 and that game runs better on AMD Mantle which runs on Win 7 so it has nothing to do with the OS, and everything to do with artificial limits MS puts on the last OS version.

 

What are they getting with Win 9? DRM they didn't want, a menu that third party programs can do on 8, and possibly more artificial performance increases behind yet another paywall Direct X patch. At least 8 gave them a faster boot. Who knows if 9 will even do that...

[IdeaStormer]

It seems the point of my post has gone way over your head... (That most changes between OS versions are non-visual, something that cannot be "seen" in a screenshot) Sorry that you are incapable of comprehending what I am conveying to you.

 

Looks like you have something vested in a rumor/leak post since we (everyone in the planet) only base our replies on what is provided not what we can dream up on or list from the past as this is the present. Need I bring up Vista (as this is not the thread for it as well).

[GoodBytes]

Too bad the list you made from 7 to 8 is pretty laughable. About the only noticeable increase with programs people actually use? Boot up speed. Good to see you are defending all things MS and belittling people who don't see a massive difference in productivity or performance (because there is none). 

 

Game performance same. Rendering with Vegas. Same. Video playback? Are you kidding with this? Who has a problem with Video playback. The Direct X improvements to other areas is artificial and could have been a patch to 7. Add to that DirectX 11.2 is a dead API that is used for ZERO games, due to Microsoft's greed, keeping it off the majority OS install base. Game developers are not going to target minority share and if anything MS is holding back PC gaming by putting DirectX upgrades behind a paywall. 

 

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/07/23/hardware-accelerating-everything-windows-8-graphics.aspx

 

Blah blah. 100 dollars for a Direct X patch and faster boot. That is pretty much all anyone got out of a Win 8 upgrade, and they had to download a third party program like Start is Back to even like the OS.  The OS is uglier and people like Slick have said this (lack of Win 7 like Aero), so you get a faster boot time for an uglier OS. The only game that ran better was BF4 and that game runs better on AMD Mantle which runs on Win 7 so it has nothing to do with the OS, and everything to do with artificial limits MS puts on the last OS version.

 

What are they getting with Win 9? DRM they didn't want, a menu that third party programs can do on 8, and possibly more artificial performance increases behind yet another paywall Direct X patch. At least 8 gave them a faster boot. Who knows if 9 will even do that...

HEY! I use Hyper-V on a daily basis, I have File History setup, which where by itself, the new and much improved file transfer system, and file collision system (the one that asks you to replace files or not), Optimize Disc panel (improved SSD support), maintenance system, fast boot, multiple display support improvement (massive may I say, and massively smart), were the main key selling point for me, for Windows 8.

And many are enjoying Storage Space. Not everyone are like you, where they cash out over 500$ for a RAID card. Sure Storage Space gets you a performance hit, but it's free, and its reliable solution.

If you don't care, than that is you. Doesn't mean everyone else are like you. Some people uses their PC as nothing more as gaming box, or a Facebook machine. Other, and most people, do productivity work with Windows, and are very interested in these features.

[GoodBytes]

Looks like you have something vested in a rumor/leak post since we (everyone in the planet) only base our replies on what is provided not what we can dream up on or list from the past as this is the present. Need I bring up Vista (as this is not the thread for it as well).

Troll is troll. You got proven wrong, and you can't accept that, so you are trolling.

[IdeaStormer]

Troll is troll. You got proven wrong, and you can't accept that, so you are trolling.

 

Windows 9 GoodBytes, Windows 9.

[deathjester]

HEY! I use Hyper-V on a daily basis, I have File History setup, which where by itself, the new and much improved file transfer system, and file collision system (the one that asks you to replace files or not), Optimize Disc panel (improved SSD support), maintenance system, fast boot, multiple display support improvement (massive may I say, and massively smart), were the main key selling point for me, for Windows 8.

And many are enjoying Storage Space. Not everyone are like you, where they cash out over 500$ for a RAID card. Sure Storage Space gets you a performance hit, but it's free, and its reliable solution.

If you don't care, than that is you. Doesn't mean everyone else are like you. Some people uses their PC as nothing more as gaming box, or a Facebook machine. Other, and most people, do productivity work with Windows, and are very interested in these features.

 

If the improvements or features are worth the 100 dollar minimum upgrade then MS should stop putting DirectX updates on only the new OS's...

 

Instead? MS and their paid advertisers promote the Direct X upgrades, and the performance improvement over the last DX,  AS the biggest improvements, which is laughable since all it does is screw over existing customers on the OS, holds back PC gaming, and the same "improvements" could be done on OpenGL and we have great video playback and text speed on freakin cell phones with a free API.

 

As I said, the list Rhood made is artificial and not related to the kernel, per MS themselves. Faster boot IS related to the kernel. Am I saying there are no new features? Nope, I am saying that MS is engaging in extortion to force you to buy the new OS with a monopoly that does nothing but hold back PC gaming and developers using the latest API improvements (which are also found in OpenGL), all so they can make more money off a OS upgrade every couple years and they seem to be speeding up the releases now. 

 

What MS SHOULD be focusing on. Making Windows update seamless like on their console as far as drivers and hardware. MS should have been involved with the hardware vendors like Nvidia and AMD and provided/helped funded things like GeForce experience. If people are paying 100 dollars for an OS then it better include ease of use. What MS should have included, or been working on for years. Things like Steam In house steaming. Their media player, and movie maker are also absolute GARBAGE compared to Apple software like Imovie, or even free software that you can use with Linux. 

 

MS has not improved gaming, and their programs included with the OS are mediocre. The improvements have been on the API, which is no better than OpenGL and MS sabotages their past products which people paid money for to promote their new OS.

 

To put it simply if MS is going to FORCE people to use Windows as the gaming OS, then their innovation, especially with their income, and the cost (Steam OS is free) should DWARF anything Steam is doing.

 

If not and MS just wants to say they are for business/productivity (which is the argument you have often made that PC Gamers mean nothing to MS as far as income)? Awesome. Let DirectX die and get the hell out of gaming and just use OpenGL on Windows, which would perform just as well and was used in the past. Thanks in advance MS. 

 

The only thing MS has contributed to gaming was an attempted yearly fee for PC gamers, which they later made a monthly fee for Xbox gamers, and other than that they bought PC franchises/games and kept them off PC (from their own freakin customers) or delayed them, like Halo, Tomb Raider, and now possibly Minecraft. As far as productivity, many of the programs that businesses use would be just as popular and good on another OS and using another API. MS does not make those third party programs. People like Sony make Sony Vegas. 

 

What is the innovation in Win 9? DRM? Awesome.

[GoodBytes]

VIDEOOOO!!!!

[Sintezza]

So still those fuggly metro tiles

[AlexGoesHigh]

VIDEOOOO!!!!

goes on OP

[Sharp_3yE]

Windows 8 and now Windows 9 will look like the Windows XP to 7 high contrast desktop theme, great improvement <_<

Square Icons and menus is not an improvement, even bringing back the Start menu is probably a few lines of code, then we're expected to pay for it?

This is why people stick to Microsoft OS's till the end of support if not longer, there is no reason to upgrade. I expect every company that has mass quantities of Windows 7 to lobby Microsoft for extended support till they actually come out with something worth an upgrade.

There is a video right now. Change your stuff and put the video in. http://youtu.be/--wgAsHWNRE

Never mind. You already did.