A new version of windows is coming!!!

[Quackers101]

1 minute ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

How do they do that without breaking everything?

throw the window out of the window, then rename it windows remover 10.

I mean, they could cut out the middleman in the mean time? So many windows and then you have BING options right there!

Would rather want yahoo answers than bing

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

How do they do that without breaking everything?

Well just because the UI changes doesnt mean everything is incompatible, this would still be similar to windows technically and if an app totally relies on having many "windows" that could still work, within the app.

 

 

 

 

[Dabombinable]

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

yep, its the exact reason Vista did so badly. Vista would have been praised if not for all the compatibility issues.

Computers with Celeron D and 512MB RAM, or Pentium D with 1GB (all Intel pre-HD iGPU) didn't endear it to people either. Plenty of school computers and cheap laptops got downgraded to XP because OEM kept up with their old+bad habits.

[FakeATF]

In a perfect world, we'd get a version of Windows that cost half as much, and had half as much crap going on in it. Simplified, no bloat, just a platform for you to use your computer on. A Windows 10 Lite, if you will.

 

But this is Microsoft we're talking about. Even if they did decide to go this direction, it'd probably be dead in the water soon after getting announced.

[StDragon]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Like realistically, "Service packs" were how things worked on NT4, and were the correct way of dealing with making the OS stable. For some reason Microsoft abandoned this, despite Windows NT4, 2K, XP, Vista and 7 fundamentally being the same OS. Windows 10 returned to something resembling the NT4 service packs, except when Windows 10 upgrades, it effectively reinstalls the OS and takes about as long as reinstalling the OS.

In the beginning, I would have agreed with this. But with SSD tech, my view changed 180 degrees.

 

In the past, you had to install the base OS before the service pack. In the days of XP, you could slipstream SP3 with other updates so a clean OS reinstall would go quicker. But now, you can use the same Windows 10 ISO to install fresh or perform an in-place upgrade; it also doubles at working around DISM issues if needed in case the Windows Update process is broken (something that would have killed a stand-alone service pack upgrade).

 

Fundamentally Windows 10 as an OS treats the PC like a mobile phone in this regard.

[Bratstech]

3 hours ago, Kisai said:

Windows suffers from the odd-numbered Star Trek films are cursed, only it's even numbers. 

Windows 3.0 bad (1990), Windows 3.1 good (1992)

Windows 95, bad (1995), 95OSR2 good (1996)

Windows 98 bad (1998), 98SE good (1999)

Windows ME bad (2000)

 

Windows NT3.5 bad(1994), Windows NT4 good (1996)

Windows 2K bad (1999), Windows XP good (2001)

Windows Vista bad (2006), Windows 7 good (2009)

Windows 8 bad (2012), Windows 10 good (2015)

 

So no matter what the "next" version is, it will be cursed and hated just for Microsoft trying to force yet another pointless upgrade. Like realistically, "Service packs" were how things worked on NT4, and were the correct way of dealing with making the OS stable. For some reason Microsoft abandoned this, despite Windows NT4, 2K, XP, Vista and 7 fundamentally being the same OS. Windows 10 returned to something resembling the NT4 service packs, except when Windows 10 upgrades, it effectively reinstalls the OS and takes about as long as reinstalling the OS. 

 

I'm sure bean counters want to sell new licenses every year, but in all honesty, we've been losing more legacy functionally in Windows for no reason at all. The only reason 8/8.1/10 are "a new OS" is that the UI supports touch functionality, even though it was mostly dialed back. Unfortunately there's a lot of broken functionality in Windows 10 (eg Midi support is completely broken, DirectX versions before 10 are completely broken, and sometimes you'll run into a game that inexplicably doesn't work. DirectDraw, DirectSound, DirectMusic, DirectPlay, DirectPlay, etc are all depreciated and are all API's that were in use in DirectX versions before 9. The DirectPlay API depreciation is especially awful since it was depreciated for functionality that Microsoft controls (Games for Windows Live/Xbox Live) and can't be replaced.

 

At least when OSX breaks functionality, most of the time the loss of that functionality is consistent, where as on Windows, that loss of functionality just "breaks" and remains broken until a third party writes an API emulator for it, owing to how much functionality has been put into the WINE project. There will come a point where a Linux OS running WINE will have more compatibility with Legacy Windows software than Windows will.

 

 

Technically the last version of windows was Windows X. so that was this is an even number

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, StDragon said:

In the beginning, I would have agreed with this. But with SSD tech, my view changed 180 degrees.

See, my opinion here is that Microsoft should have just released service packs and then slipstreamed a new version for people to install fresh if they needed it. However there is a fundamental problem here, in that it still takes 2 hours to install an OS, even on a SSD.

 

1 hour ago, StDragon said:

In the past, you had to install the base OS before the service pack. In the days of XP, you could slipstream SP3 with other updates so a clean OS reinstall would go quicker. But now, you can use the same Windows 10 ISO to install fresh or perform an in-place upgrade; it also doubles at working around DISM issues if needed in case the Windows Update process is broken (something that would have killed a stand-alone service pack upgrade).

Windows 10 is probably the only time Windows Update has worked as-intended. It never did under XP or even 7, with often those versions of windows never even attempting to update drivers.

 

1 hour ago, StDragon said:

Fundamentally Windows 10 as an OS treats the PC like a mobile phone in this regard.

Which is fine, if the machine is a single-drive, fixed hardware device. But even Windows 10 tends to botch installs on new hardware that doesn't come from an OEM because the end user didn't install it correctly (eg F6 SATA/RAID drivers) in the first place.

[suicidalfranco]

Will come the day where reactOS will be more stable and support legacy programs better than current year windows

[Laborant]

I wonder why Microsoft does not simply switch to a Unix-like kernel. Like bringing their entire suite to Linux and selling the OS like RedHat. If compatibility to Win32 apps would break, why not embrace all the open source projects out there?
Is there ANYTHING that speaks against this utopia? 

Microsoft pretty much embraces Linux and even Open Source for years now. The Windows Subsystem for Linux is really nice, they even expanded it to GUI-Applications lately and their Programming Suite VS Code and PowerShell are both open source. 
They even bought Github, the largest Git-Provider that basically hosts Linux as a whole. 

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, Kisai said:

Windows 2K bad (1999)

I'm sorry but Windows 2000 was amazingly good, all XP did was change the UI (round corners and colours, wooo), everything else near literally the same OS.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm sorry but Windows 2000 was amazingly good, all XP did was change the UI (round corners and colours, wooo), everything else near literally the same OS.

Not to mention XP got very mixed reception when it was first released and the consensus that XP was good only appeared several years after the release, when people had upgraded their computers and most software issues had been fixed.

It was seen as really bloated and demanding. If you had a CPU that was 3 years old you could basically forget installing XP. It was too heavy.

 

It was basically the same as Vista, except Vista was quickly replaced and people were stuck with XP until it had improved.

 

The whole "each second Windows is bad, and each second is good" is just a meme. People try their best to make it true by twisting facts, including or excluding certain versions, looking at the release version of some OS and the end of life version of another, etc.

[IntMD]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm sorry but Windows 2000 was amazingly good, all XP did was change the UI (round corners and colours, wooo), everything else near literally the same OS.

This. 2k was amazing for the time, XP was awful when it first launched, and most people hated it until about SP3.

[Dabombinable]

12 minutes ago, IntMD said:

This. 2k was amazing for the time, XP was awful when it first launched, and most people hated it until about SP3.

I still have a copy of Windows Home SP1A that came with my Mum's first laptop. It is horrendous next to SP3. Networking especially.

[StDragon]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm sorry but Windows 2000 was amazingly good, all XP did was change the UI (round corners and colours, wooo), everything else near literally the same OS.

I've used Win2k for many years after launch. It works best as-is out of the box as it were. But the biggest issues with that version was installing drivers. Some of the buggiest were SCSI for whatever reason. When XP launched it was no better, but improved over time.

 

I remember installing an XP machine for someone for the first time. They had their cable modem connected directly to the PC via USB as an ethernet adapter. If you unplugged it from the PC while running, it would BSOD every time. Nice...

[aDoomGuy]

16 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Don't worry they will call it doors os instead. Problem solved. 

If they are gonna rip off my 15 year old idea I'll be fuming. I still don't know how to make an operating system though so there's also that.

[Rex Hite]

I use Windows 2000 every day. Of all the OS in my shop it runs the most productive equipment and is responsible for most of my business revenue. I like it!

[Laborant]

40 minutes ago, Benji said:

I am really not well-versed in the history of OSes, kernels and whatever, but aren't Microsoft with their NT kernel among the only ones that have an almost fully self-designed kernel as opposed to RedHat, Ubuntu and whatever that use a Linux kernel and just throw in another UI and bundled software? Why build something that already exists in literally thousands of different versions? So that is what speaks against it. Not to mention that, in my mind, I can see the switch to such a platform as a problem because the "click to run" any sort of .exe file and whatever you want breaking because they aren't using their own approach anymore. Windows basically only lives of compatibility and all that would most likely break (unless they manage to perfectly port over their legacy features like older DirectX features, DirectPlay or whatever and make it run even better than Windows off it's own NT kernel, which I can't see happening), if that were gone they would also use a whole lot, if not all of their userbase. Why pay for Windows or deliberately chose it when you can download Ubuntu, Mint or whatever for free?

Microsoft more than once tried to break compatibility with their old Win32 stuff. Windows 10X was a prime example, Windows 10S is limited to the store, Windows on ARM at first tried to do so as well.
The compatibility with 20year old software is both Microsoft's strength and their biggest weakness. I can see a future where Desktop PCs are allowed to break that compatibility, while the legacy support (and Windows 10 as a whole) slowly merges into their Windows Server stuff.

[StDragon]

14 minutes ago, aDoomGuy said:

If they are gonna rip off my 15 year old idea I'll be fuming. I still don't know how to make an operating system though so there's also that.

Windows is called Doors when you root with malware. Back doors that is.

[aDoomGuy]

3 minutes ago, StDragon said:

Windows is called Doors when you root with malware. Back doors that is.

lol

[lboolaka_33]

I think by a "new generation of Windows", they mean something more akin to a typical upgrade, eg. Windows 8-->10. AKA, they probably don't intend on dropping legacy support. Honestly, I'm placing my bets on this just being a big Windows 10 Upgrade, hence them not just calling it a new Windows version. Either Sun Valley or something else down the line.

[Donut417]

On 5/25/2021 at 1:34 PM, Bratstech said:

I don't know about that it sounds like they are basically rebuilding the entire operating system. Maybe it'll look cleaner and even run better idk but I doubt that Microsoft would tease it like this if they knew that people would hate it. 

Regardless there will still be old code reused. They have to keep legacy support. Also Windows 10 is built on the NT Kernel, which was first released in 1993. Grated they have reworked it Im sure, but still. They will trying to make it look different like they did with Windows 8 and piss a lot of people off. 

[Mark Kaine]

I had a vista PC from 2007 to 2018 no issues whatsoever and it had the best (windows)  UI by far.

 

Only issue  came from SP3 (or 2?) dont install that and youre good. 

 

18 hours ago, Laborant said:

wonder why Microsoft does not simply switch to a Unix-like kernel.

Thats funny i thought the same thing…

 

They should make a new OS from ground up, dont get me wrong they have some good things with windows, the problem is the outdated foundation, the clutter and no direction. Just make a built in VM for "windows legacy" that doesnt lag* and can utilize the hardware fully.

*if there needs to be lag make it sub 5ms at least 

 

I think the one big issue with win 10 is that it was obviously built for use with touch screens in mind, but for some reason those didnt take off and we're stuck with this weird mix of huge Android style buttons and windows XP assets, and clunky as ever "mouse and keyboard controls".

 

I think a modern OS should not only have a streamlined and aesthetically pleasing UI, it should also be easily  useable with different control schemes.

kb+m (for those who are into typewriters)

Gamepad control (windows Vista had that)

Something like a "magic wand" (Xbox 360 had that) maybe compatible with VR "helmets" (for those who are into *that*)

Voice (hello, this is the 21st century, no reason not to have that)

Touch (just in case touchscreens become suddenly popular…)

 

11 hours ago, lboolaka_33 said:

I'm placing my bets on this just being a big Windows 10 Upgrade

Dreams……… shattered

 

[suicidalfranco]

4 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

I had a vista PC from 2007 to 2018 no issues whatsoever and it had the best (windows)  UI by far.

 

Only issue  came from SP3 (or 2?) dont install that and youre good. 

 

Thats funny i thought the same thing…

 

They should make a new OS from ground up, dont get me wrong they have some good things with windows, the problem is the outdated foundation, the clutter and no direction. Just make a built in VM for "windows legacy" that doesnt lag* and can utilize the hardware fully.

*if there needs to be lag make it sub 5ms at least 

 

I think the one big issue with win 10 is that it was obviously built for use with touch screens in mind, but for some reason those didnt take off and we're stuck with this weird mix of huge Android style buttons and windows XP assets, and clunky as ever "mouse and keyboard controls".

 

I think a modern OS should not only have a streamlined and aesthetically pleasing UI, it should also be easily  useable with different control schemes.

kb+m (for those who are into typewriters)

Gamepad control (windows Vista had that)

Something like a "magic wand" (Xbox 360 had that) maybe compatible with VR "helmets" (for those who are into *that*)

Voice (hello, this is the 21st century, no reason not to have that)

Touch (just in case touchscreens become suddenly popular…)

 

Dreams……… shattered

 

Use unix or Linux as a kernel

Build their own desktop environment to run on top with a consistent UI and UX

Pour money and developers over at wine for legacy support

Make DX compatible with unix/linux

That should probably fix everything

 

OR

 

Pour money and developers to go through all the legacy code base to analyse and document every single bit present in there

Once that's documented, restrocture the code base to give it a solid foundation without breaking compatibility

Maybe move a monolithic concept

And finally, now that they know what does what, apply a single, consistent design across the board

This Should work too.

 

But none of them will happen, better spend money on projects to shutdown than doing things to actually improve the situation

[Chunchunmaru_]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

Use unix or Linux as a kernel

Build their own desktop environment to run on top with a consistent UI and UX

Pour money and developers over at wine for legacy support

Make DX compatible with unix/linux

That should probably fix everything

Why should they switch to an old school monolithic kernel? That's so 80's
Their kernel architecture is let's say "modern" and fine as it is, and a sudden change would require a massive rewrite of all the drivers and basically making a new OS, I would concentrate making a finally stable update architecture which doesn't messes up something every ******* time and maybe more filesystem compatibility and WSL integration

 

[GoodBytes]

It will be called Windows 10 Series Home and Windows 10 Series Pro