New leak offers surprising details about Windows’ future

[Misanthrope]

Seriously. The START MENU, that one thing that tons of people normally didn't even use to begin with because desktop and taskbar shortcuts, was the only relevant thing that changed for desktop users on Windows 8.

 

Precisely, if it's the only relevant change for desktop users like you said, why pay for an upgrade? You keep raging on the fact that people don't want change. That's incorrect, people do appreciate change, but like you said for desktop users that didn't want or need the Metro UI and get rid off it anyway, nothing has really changed, so why am I paying 100+ bucks to upgrade? So I can now have the inconvenience of getting rid of the Metro UI? If it was a free upgrade yeah sure, I'll get rid of it and upgrade. But if I'm expected to pay a substantial amount? Fuck that 7's fine enough.

 

The only thing that could possibly save Windows 9 is to have at least one version that's completely free or irrelevantly priced (10-20 dollars) and make their revenue somewhere else like ads or paid for support or certain DLC like features. Perhaps a more friendly interface that still integrates the app store idea into the system like Ubuntu and other Linux distros.

[GoodBytes]

Precisely, if it's the only relevant change for desktop users like you said, why pay for an upgrade? You keep raging on the fact that people don't want change. That's incorrect, people do appreciate change, but like you said for desktop users that didn't want or need the Metro UI and get rid off it anyway, nothing has really changed, so why am I paying 100+ bucks to upgrade? So I can now have the inconvenience of getting rid of the Metro UI? If it was a free upgrade yeah sure, I'll get rid of it and upgrade. But if I'm expected to pay a substantial amount? Fuck that 7's fine enough.

Windows 8 has a variety of new features over Windows 7. In fact there is more features and changes in Windows 8 than what Windows 7 had.

Windows 8: http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Complete-List-of-New-Features-in-Windows-8-314077.shtml (118)

Windows 7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7 (103 with the great majority being small improvements, not actually big or new features. Additionally, many could have been grouped into 1 item, shrinking the list further down to ~88.)

Also, Windows 8 was 40$.

[Epis]

Cortana on Windows 9?

[Misanthrope]

Windows 8 has a variety of new features over Windows 7. In fact there is more features and changes in Windows 8 than what Windows 7 had.

Windows 8: http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Complete-List-of-New-Features-in-Windows-8-314077.shtml (118)

Windows 7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7 (103 with the great majority being small improvements, not actually big or new features. Additionally, many could have been grouped into 1 item, shrinking the list further down to ~88.)

Also, Windows 8 was 40$.

 

Nope: That doesn't takes into account the incredible jump in performance in going from Vista to 7. Most people like me had to specifically build a system for Vista because of the amount of resources it took to tame. That list? It means nothing until you actually sit down and try to use an Unpatched version of Vista then switch to 7: it's like dropping a 100kg weight off your shoulders.

[Jarsky]

I dont know why people keep harping on about the 'Metro UI' thing, come on guys, get with the times.

 

Yes it wasnt perfect in the first launch of Windows 8, and I've been running 8 since the preview, and have always maintained, that it is a Phase 1 in a multi phase approach and defended Microsoft in this point.

And guess what? Its held true. They've readded boot to desktop at startup, theyve made changes to the start screen for more real estate, theyve allowed you to window your windows 8 applications. they've improved the search functionality similar to back in Win7, etc.....

 

Microsoft have pretty much stuck to what they announced right at the start, so why not let them get on with it and provide useful feedback, rather than keep acting like a Win7 purist? Most people on Win7 also give Vista a hard time, despite the fact that Vista SP1 & Win7 are fundementally so much alike, its amazing they dont share the same build number with a different wallpaper.

 

Windows 8.1 also has a performance gain yet again, above Windows 7 for both standard desktop users, and gamers. There are reasons to move to Windows 8, than to be *that* guy who 15 years after an OS launch, starts to complain that theres no more support, when something better came along a decade before they ended support (looking at those *still* on XP). Microsoft take a lot of flack for what they do wrong, or what people dont understand, but they dont get credit where its due.

 

If you don't like Metro (and by Metro UI, 99% are referring to the new UI Start menu - since the metro name was just a code name that was dropped), then just get Start8. It "fixes" everything people are complaining that they dont like about it.

 

Looking forward to hearing more on this Windows 365 thing, and how that will work. And of course, the next iteration of their main OS, Windows 9, is always of interest

[GoodBytes]

Nope: That doesn't takes into account the incredible jump in performance in going from Vista to 7. Most people like me had to specifically build a system for Vista because of the amount of resources it took to tame. That list? It means nothing until you actually sit down and try to use an Unpatched version of Vista then switch to 7: it's like dropping a 100kg weight off your shoulders.

Oh you mean the performance jump of you changing your computer with Windows 7? Yeaaa.

[Misanthrope]

Oh you mean the performance jump of you changing your computer with Windows 7? Yeaaa.

 

No the performance jump from going from Vista to 7. You know what I mean, you're welcome to continuing to dodge the issue but the fact remains: 7 actually had dramatic performance improvements without dropping the additional features Vista brought up. There is no way around that, Vista was just a massive, unoptimized failure and the fact that people took a liking to 7 to this day is precisely because it was actually more feature rich than XP but still performed ok, unlike Vista.

 

But whatever, you can continue to attempt your distractions from the disaster Vista was, none of us have forgotten.

[GoodBytes]

No the performance jump from going from Vista to 7. You know what I mean, you're welcome to continuing to dodge the issue but the fact remains: 7 actually had dramatic performance improvements without dropping the additional features Vista brought up. There is no way around that, Vista was just a massive, unoptimized failure and the fact that people took a liking to 7 to this day is precisely because it was actually more feature rich than XP but still performed ok, unlike Vista.

 

But whatever, you can continue to attempt your distractions from the disaster Vista was, none of us have forgotten.

I run Vista on VM for software testing. In fact I ran it yesterday. And it runs just as well as Windows 7.

Vista was running near Windows 7 speed on my old desktop. All you had to do, is get a computer that followed the recommended specs:

-> 256MB of graphic card memory or more.

-> Pixel Shader 2.0 (full support)

-> HDD with NCQ on SATA

-> SATA controller on AHCI

-> 2GB of RAM (Vista 32-bit), 4GB for 64-bit.

-> TRUE dual core CPU 2.0GHz or faster

-> WDDM drivers

-> Vista ready drivers. And I don't mean the rushed drivers from manufactures because they were too busy forcing you to buy their new hardware/peripheral to replace their brand new hardware/peripheral for Vista support.

[Vaios]

I wish MS releases a start menu DLC soon cause am tired of people complaining

[Misanthrope]

I run Vista on VM for software testing. In fact I ran it yesterday. And it runs just as well as Windows 7.

Vista was running near Windows 7 speed on my old desktop. All you had to do, is get a computer that followed the recommended specs:

-> 256MB of graphic card memory or more.

-> Pixel Shader 2.0 (full support)

-> HDD with NCQ on SATA

-> SATA controller on AHCI

-> 2GB of RAM (Vista 32-bit), 4GB for 64-bit.

-> TRUE dual core CPU 2.0GHz or faster

-> WDDM drivers

-> Vista ready drivers. And I don't mean the rushed drivers from manufactures because they were too busy forcing you to buy their new hardware/peripheral to replace their brand new hardware/peripheral for Vista support.

 

4gb in 2007 was overkill, most PCs back then where running 2gb at most. Seriously you need to think about it: even today we're not really using anything more than 8gb....7 years later. And if you like copy/pasting requirements:

 

If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

 

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/system-requirements

 

Note that this was 2 years later yet the requirements were completely different. Again you've shown your bias by doing irrelevant testing 7 years later after we can pretty much laugh at the requirements. The reality is that when it came out, it basically hurt the desktop and laptop market so much due to inadequate performance that I dare to say it hasn't recovered since.

[Jarsky]

No the performance jump from going from Vista to 7. You know what I mean, you're welcome to continuing to dodge the issue but the fact remains: 7 actually had dramatic performance improvements without dropping the additional features Vista brought up. There is no way around that, Vista was just a massive, unoptimized failure and the fact that people took a liking to 7 to this day is precisely because it was actually more feature rich than XP but still performed ok, unlike Vista.

 

But whatever, you can continue to attempt your distractions from the disaster Vista was, none of us have forgotten.

 

You must be comparing the original Vista to 7. There were a huge number of fixes implemented in Vista SP1 which added much of what would then become Windows 7.

Yes, we can all attest that the original Vista was not optimised and had its fair share of problems, but was it a failure? No.

It was the first iteration of its new generation of OS, I think we can all agree that any new gen software, is going to have its shortcomings. But Vista SP1 is almost a completely different beast to the original Vista from stability, to performance, to features and I still know a number of people who run it (cloning it to their SSD and upgrading their hardware). It runs as impressive as any of my Windows 7 computers with the same spec hardware. It's biggest issue was that the OS, was ahead of the hardware of the time - and unless you had the latest gear, it would run sluggish (like an old Athlon, or P4). But on my Athlon II X2 with my 9600GT SLI XXX Alpha Dogs, it ran like a beast (as much as you can call it, back in the days of Vista).

[GoodBytes]

I wish MS releases a start menu DLC soon cause am tired of people complaining

They'll still complain. Like Vista Start Menu. Windows 7 Start Menu is pixel by pixel exact to Vista's, and now it is "the best start menu EVAR!", even thought back in XP days, it was hated again, because 'it was too big', and how unproductive it is, and how you just simply can't use the computer anymore.

[GoodBytes]

4gb in 2007 was overkill,

Yea. And then you complaints why Vista was bad.

But it's ok for games. That gets a pass. Right?

Yea ok. There is "recommended" to get the OS working (ie: it runs.. slide show, but runs), and there is recommended.

My mothers computer, running Windows 7, Genuine copy with box and everything, no junk (she can't install a thing) has faster than those specs and it crawls.

Vista sucked, because the consumer trusted the OEM manufactures to provide the required computer specs to offer a great experience. Instead they bullied Microsoft to lower the specs of Vista, and released system that completely under powered, you won't even put XP on it (despite working), as they are emptying old stock, and Intel not even lifting a finger to have their graphics solution AT LEAST support transparency properly, until later. And manufactures putting S3, VIA and Intel solutions that could not be used to handle Vista GPU rendered GUI, because it was free solutions.

And at the same time, many companies did their best to not provide Vista support on existing product, which are still normally supported by the company, for you to run buy their new product, which was a rebranded product. HP (the guiltiest) even puts lock chips in the printer and drivers made sure that you have the right printer, and not install the driver (which would normally work on the older printer, as it is a rebrand).

[Misanthrope]

You must be comparing the original Vista to 7. There were a huge number of fixes implemented in Vista SP1 which added much of what would then become Windows 7.

Yes, we can all attest that the original Vista was not optimised and had its fair share of problems, but was it a failure? No.

It was the first iteration of its new generation of OS, I think we can all agree that any new gen software, is going to have its shortcomings. But Vista SP1 is almost a completely different beast to the original Vista from stability, to performance, to features and I still know a number of people who run it (cloning it to their SSD and upgrading their hardware). It runs as impressive as any of my Windows 7 computers with the same spec hardware. It's biggest issue was that the OS, was ahead of the hardware of the time - and unless you had the latest gear, it would run sluggish (like an old Athlon, or P4). But on my Athlon II X2 with my 9600GT SLI XXX Alpha Dogs, it ran like a beast (as much as you can call it, back in the days of Vista).

 

Yes the damage can't really be undone with service packs and no, it wasn't the "first iteration" of it's generation of OS, it's still the old NT core

[Misanthrope]

Yea. And then you complaints why Vista was bad.

But it's ok for games. That gets a pass. Right?

Yea ok. There is "recommended" to get the OS working (ie: it runs.. slide show, but runs), and there is recommended.

My mothers computer, running Windows 7, Genuine copy with box and everything, no junk (she can't install a thing) has faster than those specs and it crawls.

 

It crawls but it wouldn't even run on Vista. But I think I'm done with your revisionism bullshit I don't really need to illustrate how awful Vista was, anybody who's interested can easily look up the stories and the sales numbers and issues back then and how it almost killed the PC market entirely.

[GoodBytes]

Yes the damage can't really be undone with service packs and no, it wasn't the "first iteration" of it's generation of OS, it's still the old NT core

Heumm no. You are completely wrong.

Vista is a new core. The day Microsoft will scrap the registry and the core way Windows works at its foundation, making 0 software work, much like trying to run a Windows software on Mac or Linux without any software emulation or simulation or translator or PC Virtual Machine running an earlier version of Windows to run programs, is when you'll see "NT" be named something else.

Vista was a 6 year development project. Microsoft scrap XP (based on Windows NT 3, back in 1993), and restart from scratch, still basis on the NT kernel design to allow most software to run on Vista. The basis of this decision was mainly security, which was inadequate at the time (it was so bad, Microsoft had to put on hold Longhorn (Vista) project, to make SP2 on XP, a rushed Service Pack with ugly patches and a half broken firewall, which was something. Yea.. that bad!), and also to support new modern technologies.

That is why Vista had bugs that didn't exists before, and needed a big coat of polishing, and the majority of features of Vista are on the back end. The user didn't get many new features. In fact, very little, which reduced the value of the OS.

But we are not talking about how Windows 7 was greatly more polished over Vista and how it improved things at the core design level. But rather features from Vista to Windows 7, and Windows 7 to Windows 8.

[GoodBytes]

It crawls but it wouldn't even run on Vista. But I think I'm done with your revisionism bullshit I don't really need to illustrate how awful Vista was, anybody who's interested can easily look up the stories and the sales numbers and issues back then and how it almost killed the PC market entirely.

What you are trying to do, is showcase Windows 7 as the best OS, and how it was dramatically better than anything, including Windows 8, to give reason on why to stay with Windows 7, and never upgrade, ever, like many XP users, that refuses Windows 7. I am not saying that 30% of XP system users are these people, of course, not. Most of them are in businesses, or old computers at people house that are rarely used, or POS systems or ATMs.

I am just saying that Windows 7, while a great OS, wasn't that much better than Vista as you, and others, proclaim to be. Yea it a great OS, I sure enjoyed it. But I also liked Vista. I had, and many others as well, a better and more responsive experience than XP. The simple fact that the GUI was fully GPU rendered, allows the CPU to be more free for gaming and software, and in addition, having it use the RAM first and for most, and not the page file, allows for a faster and more responsive experience. And let's not forget having an OS itself be multi-core optimized to give further resources to software you are running, and supporting natively SATA controller, allowed support for Hybrid-HHD (that never really took off, but still cool concept) and NCQ technology, which as you can see from this graph, can greatly improve performance. You just needed to buy an HDD with it.

And hence why I said that 4GB of RAM wasn't some far fetch thing, and to fair, you could get away with 3GB, but dual channel setup is always better. Most people that complained didn't even use Vista. They just repeat what they were told, or experienced on an inadequate computer.

Now do you understanding where I am coming from instead of saying that what I am, well saying, is B.S?

[Misanthrope]

What you are trying to do, is showcase Windows 7 as the best OS, and how it was dramatically better than anything, including Windows 8, to give reason on why to stay with Windows 7, and never upgrade, ever, like many XP users, that refuses Windows 7. 

 

No I actually suggested a few posts back that people who truly want change to try a popular Linux flavour like Ubuntu, Linux Mint or once it's out and mature, SteamOS. That's what I would consider a superior architecture and truly efficient OS.

[GoodBytes]

No I actually suggested a few posts back that people who truly want change to try a popular Linux flavour like Ubuntu, Linux Mint or once it's out and mature, SteamOS. That's what I would consider a superior architecture and truly efficient OS.

But they aren't, much Windows 8.

I used to have Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on my old laptop (main OS for a while. Yes sir! Ubuntu 10!). Well now I have a Surface Pro 2, and getting any Linux based OS distro working on it, fully (including touch screen and pen), seams to be a huge hassle (well it is). Its not that Microsoft is blocking anything, but rather lack of drivers. So it's under VM for me.

I can't comment on the "superior architecture", because every design choice made by Linux architecture you can find, pretty much, the same number of counter argument, which is what many of Windows choices are at the architecture level. Not that I have done a side by side comparison of ever component of the kernel. So I am no expert on it, so I won't comment.

As for a end-user experience (which is what maters at the end of the day). I find using Ubuntu (the hated OS by the Linux community it seams, because it is highly modified version of Linux, and is suggested to use "shrugs" Arch Linux (which I did, funny enough, used for my embedded system project)) don't like it. Why? Too complicated to do simple things. I admire Linux vast power and flexibility. But I see it as a balance. MacOS being the example or lack of power, but easy to use.

[Jarsky]

Yes the damage can't really be undone with service packs and no, it wasn't the "first iteration" of it's generation of OS, it's still the old NT core

 

Just because it's in the NT family, does not mean it is not a new generation of OS.

 

A few things to note:

Windows Aero

Enhanced animations for the UI

Start Menu redesign

Explorer redesign with the first step towards Ribbon Framework

Metadata search functionality

New file transfer handling

More feature integration into Windows itself (like not needing some 3rd party cd burning software, or some 3rd part software to handle your audio device, etc...)

Complete re-write of the audio stack

Complete re-write of the networking stack

Redesigned print architecture

Major kernel rewrite & memory handling operations

Enhanced DLL handling

Registry virtualization

UEFI Support for booting GUID Partition tables

Introduction of the .NET Framework

User Account Control (UAC)

Bitlocker drive encryption

A complete Firewall overhaul

EFS Encyrption

Network Access Protection

 

 

etc.....basically everything we take for granted that makes Windows 7 an amazing machine compared to XP/NT4.0/2000, originated from Windows Vista.

[Hidden Orange]

Yay... Can't wait for Windows 10 at the price of another $100... Can't we just have Windows 8.5 or something instead of a straight jump to W9?

[GoodBytes]

Yay... Can't wait for Windows 10 at the price of another $100... Can't we just have Windows 8.5 or something instead of a straight jump to W9?

With the image that Windows 8 has in the min of people, don't bet on it.

Every 3 years you have a new version of Windows. Windows is following a trend of having a deep discount at release. Windows 7 was 60 or 50% off based on the edition you pick, and had 3 licenses for 150$ (so 50$ each). Windows 8 was 40$. So maybe the same will happened with Windows 9. Stay tune.

Also a game is 60$.. that's <6 month of entertainment in most cases. Windows a far more complex software is only 100$ for 3 years. That's great value right there.

And how much is Adobe software when it used to be able to purchase them? Software drastically simpler than an OS?

Windows is a pretty good deal. And of course, nothing blocks you from not upgrading.

[DigiKing]

tick tock... that's all I can say

[Sintezza]

As far as my information knowledge goes, windows 9 will be released next year.

 

I readed some articles in January, That MS want to get rid of windows 8, because its a fail.

If im right the new windows 9, will be back with Desktop mode, and a start menu again, also the "windows" will be back as standard again, like windows 7. also there will be a option, to run metro apps, in a window. and that would make me realy happy. cause i dont give a fuck about all those apps hype bullshit.

 

If they finaly also do something about theire poor scheduler, then i would be totaly happy.

 

i used windows 8 for 2 days in a VM, and after the first day, i was realy soo annoyed.. the whole metro and full screen apps.. its just terrible. and totaly useless for desktop ussage.

[Jarsky]

Do you have a source? Everything official i've read from Microsoft, is that Windows 8 was only the first step towards a Unified OS Environment and Windows 9 being what they're working towards in refining all of the interaction with it between Desktop and Touch devices.

 

The point of a unified OS is to be able to roll out updates faster, by being able to build off the same base for Desktop, Mobile & Server off the unified system. This is the reasoning behind essentially rebuilding much of the OS from the ground up again.

 

Also if you're annoyed, then go for Win 8.1 Update, it employs many of the fixes introduced to fix much of what people are complaining about, including being able to run Win8 Apps in windowed mode or full screen, enhanced search functionality, boot to desktop at startup, and enhancing the Start tiles & multi-app window modes.