Windows 9 - on time - revamp charm bar and more (rumors)

[TheProfosist]

then if you like it, great . You don't even need to pay $50 to get a windows 9 license. For a lot of people, however windows 8.1 is very inefficient in terms of usability, including me.

I call bs on that because as an enthusiast I always want the latest and greatest, software is a lot like hardware in that way. Also I imagine the start screen will still be in windows 9 for tablets and 2 in 1's.

Mind explaining how its so inefficient because everyone throws that around among other things but never goes into explaining what they mean. I still believe that Win8 could have succeeded with the start screen. There were just many things that were not handled properly that led to its downfall.

At least that's what they're supposed to do. Updates always make my computer sluggish and buggy. Every time they release an update it breaks more things that need to be addressed in the next update. If you use SP1 with no updates then you can guarantee that all the launch bugs have been fixed and because it is a full service pack and not just a pile of random updates, Microsoft likely tested it extensively for stability.

You seem to be living in the per windows XP SP2 era because that hasnt been the case for quite a long time minus a update here or there. I mean there was a reason older people are afraid to update their machines but that is not longer something to really worry about for the mainstream consumer.

I really hope these rumors are true. I have been tempted to get Windows 8 a few times but always thought "the cons outweighs the pros" and stuck with Windows 7. It would be nice to get all the pros of Windows 8 without any of the cons.

I like most of the rumors surrounding Windows 9. I really hope Microsoft doesn't fuck it up, but I have next to no faith in Microsoft so I keep my expectations as low as possible.

 

According to Daily Tech they will release a public preview this fall. I'll probably check it out when that is released.

 

 

Speaking of the charms, there are conflicting reports regarding it. Here is what ZDNet wrote about it:

I think the should get rid of it from the desktop but keep it in the start screen and metro. My other question is how would tablet users or those with touchscreens easily access that stuff? Also I just redid a ThinkPad T440p for a friend and his trackpad supports all the windows 8 metro swipe in gestures and stuff.

[kgrose102]

I'm betting that Windows 9 will release at the same time that Microsoft releases the Surface pro 4. Considering that the Surface pro line has been microsoft's flagship for windows 8 and 8.1 it only makes sense that the Surface Pro 4 will be the flagship for Windows 9.

[martinrox1568]

I call bs on that because as an enthusiast I always want the latest and greatest, software is a lot like hardware in that way. Also I imagine the start screen will still be in windows 9 for tablets and 2 in 1's.Mind explaining how its so inefficient because everyone throws that around among other things but never goes into explaining what they mean. I still believe that Win8 could have succeeded with the start screen. There were just many things that were not handled properly that led to its downfall.You seem to be living in the per windows XP SP2 era because that hasnt been the case for quite a long time minus a update here or there. I mean there was a reason older people are afraid to update their machines but that is not longer something to really worry about for the mainstream consumer.I think the should get rid of it from the desktop but keep it in the start screen and metro. My other question is how would tablet users or those with touchscreens easily access that stuff? Also I just redid a ThinkPad T440p for a friend and his trackpad supports all the windows 8 metro swipe in gestures and stuff.

I'm not here to start an arguement, which is what you seem to be trying to be doing. But since u insist, I find having to wait a full second after I click the start button just for an animation stupid. Having the whole screen taken up by something that requires 1/10 of a screen idiotic. Having the metro photo gallery pop up at a random file type even though I set the desktop galley set as default makes me want to kill myself every time. Every time I want to close a desktop app I find myself in the stupid fucking charm bar. Why Microsoft went out of their way to break a desktop user experience I have no idea. These are only 1/4 of the problems I have with it because I am typing on a tablet and it is taking too long. And the worst part is that even on tablets the experience is so-so. They broke a desktop experience to have a decent tablet

[Guest]

Stop changing Windows. I like Windows XP the way it is now.

Stop changing Windows. I like Windows 3.1 the way it is now.

[GoodBytes]

I'm not here to start an arguement, which is what you seem to be trying to be doing. But since u insist, I find having to wait a full second after I click the start button just for an animation stupid. Having the whole screen taken up by something that requires 1/10 of a screen idiotic. Having the metro photo gallery pop up at a random file type even though I set the desktop galley set as default makes me want to kill myself every time. Every time I want to close a desktop app I find myself in the stupid fucking charm bar. Why Microsoft went out of their way to break a desktop user experience I have no idea. These are only 1/4 of the problems I have with it because I am typing on a tablet and it is taking too long. And the worst part is that even on tablets the experience is so-so. They broke a desktop experience to have a decent tablet

 

The tablet experience is not so-so. It's great.

The problem that Microsoft has with Windows 8, and Microsoft itself, is that when Microsoft has a vision, it sees itself already there. Windows 95 was too ahead of its time. It required too fast systems to run, making only people who bought med/high-end computers really enjoy it, and they were not cheap back then. Vista is another example. The OS was 3 years early. Windows 8 is no exception, and the decision making is front and center onto why Microsoft took this path.

Here is the situation, desktop sales is plummeting. Businesses don't even buy desktops, now they buy laptops. Laptops and especially tablets are selling like hot cakes during Windows 8 development. Talks and ideas of having 1 device for everything was in role. Microsoft was late in the mobile space, because smartphone wasn't growing despite huge a money being dump in, as the market at the time was all about flip phones, and the lack of vision there made Microsoft see no point investing more, and instead invested in what is proven to bring a lot of money: search. I think anyone here would have taken the same decisions.

 

To not miss the boat, Microsoft saw that convertible devices like the Surface Pro could replace most people laptops and tablet into 1 device, heck even desktop, and as technology progresses forward, it could potentially replace more people desktop, the moment you have a decent Nvidia and AMD GPU that can be put inside of such small device and still retain great battery life. To make this multi-world a reality, Steve Ballmer give 'carte blanche' to a visionary within Microsoft: Steven Sinofsky, full control of Windows. Windows 8 can be called: Steven Sinofsky's Windows.

 

Sadly, and this is the cost of taking risk, this is the cost of innovation, the days that someone excepted, or in this case Microsoft, didn't came true. People aren't ready to do this massive switch. People don't like change. They want a transition, and as much as I like Windows 8, Windows 8.0 had no transition. You had no tutorials, no setup on the start screen on what you can do, included Windows 8 Apps were barebone, no videos showing how it would work (all this, Windows 7 had), the TV ads assumed that you knew Windows 8 already (Windows 7 had those 7sec ads), And windows 8, has no tutorials to get you started. Windows 8.1 kinda added the tutorial part, and did massive improvement by collecting telemetry data, and Steven Sinofsky was kick-ed out. But it is what it is.

 

I guess the lesson to learn is that you want a visionary, you have to be open to it, but you can't let a visionary 'carte blanche' on a product, as you won't have a transition period or process for the user to adapt, and allow the market to develop. I still think Windows 8 ideas and concepts is the future, and if you don't, then you are stuck in time. It is. And the next step, which Motorola and ASUS tried and failed to push, was a smartphone be the device that will replace everything. it will come. But Windows 8, like Vista was too ahead of its time. The good news, is that usually Microsoft gets there. Windows 98 is a perfect example. Windows 7 shows that adding 3 years for technology to catch up you can have an awesome experience, and what 3 years of polishing and optimizing can do. In the case of Windows 9, I believe, with the limited information I have from it, like everyone else here, will take a few steps back, but you must be foolish to think that will be permanent. It will be the OS that will fit in between Windows 7 and Windows 8. That transition OS. Sure, maybe, when Surface Pro type of devices are started to be discovered by the mass consumer, and the market changes, that version of Windows won't be identical to Windows 8, which is fine, but the ideas and concept would be there.

 

Regardless of the fact, Windows 9 will be more business and power user focused. Windows 10 will be about innovation, and Windows 11 will be back to power user and business focus and so on and so forth, as business are all sync to a 6 year upgrade cycle. So it leaves 3 years of openness for Microsoft to experiment, and innovate, while the following OS would be about polishing that experience, change things to make it better, and so on.

[LAwLz]

-snip-

Please stop blaming the users for the failure of Windows 8. The blame is 100% on Microsoft.

 

I don't even think people need a transitioning period as long as things are handled in a good and intuitive way. Just look at Android. Most people don't have any problem moving from a dumbphone to an Android phone, but moving from Windows 7 to Windows 8 frustrates the vast majority of people, casual and power users alike.

You can't blame the users for not "liking innovation" or "don't want change". Microsoft just handled it poorly and ignored the criticism they got during the public beta. I think my summary of why they included Metro is far more logical that your vague stuff about "they had a vision!".

 

I think they saw how much money Apple and Google made from their mobile app stores and wanted a piece. Sadly for them, Windows Phone failed hard (completely Microsoft's fault that time as well) so they had the brilliant idea of leveraging their monopoly in the laptop and desktop space to force people to use the app store. By forcing desktop and laptop users to use metro, they got millions of new potential customers for their app store. I see the rumored DRM which requires a Microsoft account as the next step in forcing people to use the store.

It's the same tactic as Google used with Google+ on YouTube. Google+ was not popular so they forced people to use it by shoehorning it into their popular product. Just replace "Google+" with "Microsoft app store" or "Metro", and replace "YouTube" with "Windows".

[GoodBytes]

Please stop blaming the users for the failure of Windows 8. The blame is 100% on Microsoft.

Thanks for reading.. next time READ. You didn't even read my post. You saw a long post, and came to a conclusion to what you think it says.

[LAwLz]

Thanks for reading.. next time READ. You didn't even read my post. You saw a long post, and came to a conclusion to what you think it says.

I did read your post and I think it's bullshit. I have edited my post to explain why and to include a more reasonable explanation that doesn't have to resort to vague stuff like "he had a vision!" which sounds like it was taken from a religious text book.

[gigabyte]

GOML it's all about Windows 2000

Too bad non of y'all ever used w 95

[Camul]

Stop changing Windows. I like Windows XP the way it is now.

This. I cannot stand all of my programs running perfectly fine for more than 20 minutes at a time!

[MuffinTopMike]

I actually like Windows 8.1, but one thing I really hate about it is the charm bar. Get rid of it and put back the start menu.

[GoodBytes]

I did read your post and I think it's bullshit. I have edited my post to explain why and to include a more reasonable explanation that doesn't have to resort to vague stuff like "he had a vision!" which sounds like it was taken from a religious text book.

Yup. And I call complete b.s on everything you are saying. Because if Microsoft wanted to do this, then you would not have a desktop at all.

They could also kill support early of Windows 7, and turn off Windows update servers for all version of Windows, forcing you to Windows 8, buying Windows 8 Apps.

Then force you to buy the same apps again and again for each version of Windows later released, and devices.

[ZacDaMan72]

1.0 or nothing.

Gimme my DOS back!!! I know DOS isn't Windows.

[LAwLz]

Yup. And I call complete b.s on everything you are saying. Because if Microsoft wanted to do this, then you would not have a desktop at all.

They could also kill support early of Windows 7, and turn off Windows update servers for all version of Windows, forcing you to Windows 8, buying Windows 8 Apps.

Then force you to buy the same apps again and again for each version of Windows later released, and devices.

Don't be ridiculous. That would be a complete commercial suicide. You don't get people to use your unsuccessful products by killing your successive product. Nobody would tolerate the practices in your post so people would leave instantly. What they are doing right now is making the store slowly become mandatory by adding it to more and more things, and making more and more things rely on it. It's a slippery slope (and no not the continuum fallacy because we are already seeing this happening). It's the exact same situation as with Google+. Shoehorn a disliked product into a market you have monopoly on. Painful for consumers but not enough of a pressure point to make consumers leave. Then once they have gotten used to it you slowly increase the pressure as far as you can.

 

About killing support for Windows 7, I think they have pretty much already done that. We still haven't received new features like a new version of DirectX so only security updates are sent out. Unexpectedly stop sending out security updates to over half of the worlds computers would be a PR nightmare. I have no doubt in my mind that they would do it if they could get away with it (because which company wouldn't want to stop spending time and money on a product that is no longer sold?). Luckily for consumers the outrage would be huge so they won't do it.

[mizifih]

I only got windows after Windows 8.1. I mean, way after, I guess, I got it like 2 months ago, and I already had heard rumors about Windows 9. I remember when I got my Windows 7 Ultimate box, black, cool, two disks... And I used it til about two months ago. I bought Windows 7 like on day 1! So guess what!? My money was very well spent and used. It was like... I don't know, maybe 5 years before I got my digital copy for Windows 8.1, I think it was back in 2009. So I paid big bucks for the Windows 7, like R$800 (around $340 USD) but in the end, it's probably one of the things that lasted more for that money, not even a phone last that much these days. If you think about it, if it was a subscription service, it's the same as paying less then $70/year for a OS. Pretty awesome, considering Office 365 costs a little bit more then that. Windows 8.1 Pro cost me R$699, so... the same as Windows 7 cost me.

 

That being said, let's say Windows 9 looks better but, most important, fits me better then Windows 8.1 (that I'm actually comfortably using now, I kinda got the hangs to it's changes)? I will not buy it! No way! I'm not following this manner, like reading much about this update, I'm pretty pissed just for hearing about Windows 9, the fact that it would be released next year, I don't care if it's December! I don't care if it's 2016, it really bothers me, a lot!

 

OSs need constantly update but not a new version every other year. Keep updating the current one. Windows is expensive for a regular user, at least here in Brazil, unless you settle for those limited home versions, that actually are expensive too, but less.

 

I would appreciate if there is a program for Windows 8.1 users to use their keys and get a copy of Windows 9. And I'm not talking about upgrades. Upgrades are stupid, right! Anyways, OSs are expensive enough and it's worth it ONLY if you really use it for a long time. How old is Windows 8? Is it 2 years already? Windows 8.1 was release April this year, probably as an April fools bad joke, considering Windows 9 can get released 1 year after that!

 

I wish I could use Linux, I wish so hard! It's so F'ed up trying to be legal... sometimes I kinda understand piracy, even though I don't condone it. I'll be really pissed of if they release a new Windows on this (very much) short time. And I don't care if they support Windows 8.1 as much as they planned for Windows 7. I don't care, it's pointless.

 

Just improve the current one, please.

 

Windows 8.2, Windows 8.3???

[GoodBytes]

Don't be ridiculous. That would be a complete commercial suicide. You don't get people to use your unsuccessful products by killing your successive product. Nobody would tolerate the practices in your post so people would leave instantly. What they are doing right now is making the store slowly become mandatory by adding it to more and more things, and making more and more things rely on it. It's a slippery slope (and no not the continuum fallacy because we are already seeing this happening). It's the exact same situation as with Google+. Shoehorn a disliked product into a market you have monopoly on. Painful for consumers but not enough of a pressure point to make consumers leave. Then once they have gotten used to it you slowly increase the pressure as far as you can.

 

About killing support for Windows 7, I think they have pretty much already done that. We still haven't received new features like a new version of DirectX so only security updates are sent out. Unexpectedly stop sending out security updates to over half of the worlds computers would be a PR nightmare. I have no doubt in my mind that they would do it if they could get away with it (because which company wouldn't want to stop spending time and money on a product that is no longer sold?). Luckily for consumers the outrage would be huge so they won't do it.

No, because there is no alternatives. That is why they don't leave YouTube. The moment Twitch started to be one, Google bought them out, and in stored the copyright block system soon after, blocking fair use videos, to make more money from creators, by not paying their cut.

[GoodBytes]

I only got windows after Windows 8.1. I mean, way after, I guess, I got it like 2 months ago, and I already had heard rumors about Windows 9. I remember when I got my Windows 7 Ultimate box, black, cool, two disks... And I used it til about two months ago. I bought Windows 7 like on day 1! So guess what!? My money was very well spent and used. It was like... I don't know, maybe 5 years before I got my digital copy for Windows 8.1, I think it was back in 2009. So I paid big bucks for the Windows 7, like R$800 (around $340 USD) but in the end, it's probably one of the things that lasted more for that money, not even a phone last that much these days. If you think about it, if it was a subscription service, it's the same as paying less then $70/year for a OS. Pretty awesome, considering Office 365 costs a little bit more then that. Windows 8.1 Pro cost me R$699, so... the same as Windows 7 cost me.

 

That being said, let's say Windows 9 looks better but, most important, fits me better then Windows 8.1 (that I'm actually comfortably using now, I kinda got the hangs to it's changes)? I will not buy it! No way! I'm not following this manner, like reading much about this update, I'm pretty pissed just for hearing about Windows 9, the fact that it would be released next year, I don't care if it's December! I don't care if it's 2016, it really bothers me, a lot!

 

OSs need constantly update but not a new version every other year. Keep updating the current one. Windows is expensive for a regular user, at least here in Brazil, unless you settle for those limited home versions, that actually are expensive too, but less.

 

I would appreciate if there is a program for Windows 8.1 users to use their keys and get a copy of Windows 9. And I'm not talking about upgrades. Upgrades are stupid, right! Anyways, OSs are expensive enough and it's worth it ONLY if you really use it for a long time. How old is Windows 8? Is it 2 years already? Windows 8.1 was release April this year, probably as an April fools bad joke, considering Windows 9 can get released 1 year after that!

 

I wish I could use Linux, I wish so hard! It's so F'ed up trying to be legal... sometimes I kinda understand piracy, even though I don't condone it. I'll be really pissed of if they release a new Windows on this (very much) short time. And I don't care if they support Windows 8.1 as much as they planned for Windows 7. I don't care, it's pointless.

 

Just improve the current one, please.

 

Windows 8.2, Windows 8.3???

 

Welcome to the forum.

Every 3 years you have a new version of Windows. The exception was XP. Windows 8 Pro + Media Center pack was 40$ (or equivalent due to currency value difference, taxes and such) all together in many regions, if I recall correctly for several months as a upgrade offer. Most likely Windows 9 will have something like that as well, as it seams to be something that Microsoft likes doing since Win7.

 

The original plans of Windows 8 was to have 8.1 and 8.2. So now instead of 8.2, we have "8.1 Update 1", now renamed to simply: "8.1 Update", due to the lack of popularity of Windows 8.

The idea is that you get improvement to the OS quicker, and not have to wait until the next Windows, to make the OS more competitive in the tablet and mobile space world.

[mizifih]

Welcome to the forum.

Every 3 years you have a new version of Windows. The exception was XP. Windows 8 Pro + Media Center pack was 40$ (or equivalent due to currency value difference, taxes and such) all together in many regions, if I recall correctly for several months as a upgrade offer. Most likely Windows 9 will have something like that as well, as it seams to be something that Microsoft likes doing since Win7.

 

The original plans of Windows 8 was to have 8.1 and 8.2. So now instead of 8.2, we have "8.1 Update 1", now renamed to simply: "8.1 Update", due to the lack of popularity of Windows 8.

The idea is that you get improvement to the OS quicker, and not have to wait until the next Windows, to make the OS more competitive in the tablet and mobile space world.

 

Thank you

 

Windows 8 Pro + Media Center pack for 40$? I wish they had this deal here

 

• Windows 3.0: May 22, 1990
• Windows 3.1: April 6, 1992
• Windows 3.11: December 31, 1993
• Windows 95: August 24, 1995 (2-ish, 5-ish considering Win3.0, I was like, whoooot? This OS is soooo cool! Around that time I heard IBM got there first with their OS/2, but I never used it though, dunno for sure what's real)
• Windows 98: June 25, 1998 (3-ish)
• Windows ME: September 14, 2000 (2-ish, but isn't it like a fancy Win98?)
• Windows 2000: February 17, 2000 (let's not consider this, even though it was used as a client, not only server)
• Windows XP: October 25, 2001 (1-ish)
• Widnows Vista: January 30, 2007 (6-ish)
• Windows 7: October 22, 2009 (2-ish)
• Windows 8: October 26, 2012 (3-ish)
• Windows 9: July 16, 2015 (3-ish, rumor has it)

 

A lot of ishes there, but I think that's about it

 

I think that Microsoft confusion can't lead us to conclude that they have an "every 3-ish year" schedule.

[GoodBytes]

Well obviously it's 3-ish years, and not on the clock. You have competition, and you have delays in a product that can move a product release.

 

Windows Me was a failed project to bring Win9x with NT, as Microsoft wanted to maintain 1 OS core, and not two. That is why Windows 2000 was released at the same year, and why XP was released later, in rush response to the failure Windows Me was, and MacOS 10, which had a nice looking interface. It also latest longer, as Microsoft decided to scrap XP (based on NT 3.x kernel), which was no longer secure, nor solid, nor able to be the next generation of computers, if you want to call it that, and drop support for legacy technology in order to support new ones. The project was so large, that it took more than 3 years. Hence why I said, XP was the exception, as it was the exception from release, and period it lasted.

 

But yes, you are right.

[LAwLz]

No, because there is no alternatives. That is why they don't leave YouTube. The moment Twitch started to be one, Google bought them out, and in stored the copyright block system soon after, blocking fair use videos, to make more money from creators, by not paying their cut.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no alternative to what? Windows? If they forced people to rebuy everything all the time they would simply stop using it, pirate it like crazy or change to OS X or GNU/Linux.

If you're talking about YouTube then, yes? That was my point. Google (and now Microsoft) are using a market their basically have a monopoly on to force their way into markets they failed to penetrate. Google+ failed as a social media platform so Google forced people to use it through their monopoly on online video streaming. Microsoft failed with their Windows phone and their online app store so they are trying to force people to use it through their monopoly on desktop and laptop OSes.

[mizifih]

I'd buy a Microsoft Intel Tablet when my Android TF300 expires his usefulness. But I get your point. But I don't think Microsoft is forcing people to use windows on tablets. I can pretty much use my Android devices and Windows OS without any hiccup whatsoever.

 

About other Operating System, I get your point, except it's not that simple as OpenSource/Mac lovers suggest. I have software that are't web based, so I MUST use Windows. But yeah, I get your point. I'm still using windows at my home, it's more comfortable and I'm lazy to learn another Video Editing, Text Editor, Spreadsheet editor, PHP/HTML Editor for my eventual coding... But again, I hear you, I use Linux (OpenMediaVault) on my Storage server and I'm not limited to the Web GUI they provide, I actually input commands over the terminal, I started with DOS, so it's simple, even though I'm far from knowing it's inner-workings and all commands, I'm a Windows user at core, there's nothing I can do... I tried dual booting and start a transition, but I didn't like the effort I had to put into that ;(

 

So, I guess, all I can do is bish about it. Maybe, I don't know... LOL

[martinrox1568]

The tablet experience is not so-so. It's great.

The problem that Microsoft has with Windows 8, and Microsoft itself, is that when Microsoft has a vision, it sees itself already there. Windows 95 was too ahead of its time. It required too fast systems to run, making only people who bought med/high-end computers really enjoy it, and they were not cheap back then. Vista is another example. The OS was 3 years early. Windows 8 is no exception, and the decision making is front and center onto why Microsoft took this path.

Here is the situation, desktop sales is plummeting. Businesses don't even buy desktops, now they buy laptops. Laptops and especially tablets are selling like hot cakes during Windows 8 development. Talks and ideas of having 1 device for everything was in role. Microsoft was late in the mobile space, because smartphone wasn't growing despite huge a money being dump in, as the market at the time was all about flip phones, and the lack of vision there made Microsoft see no point investing more, and instead invested in what is proven to bring a lot of money: search. I think anyone here would have taken the same decisions.

To not miss the boat, Microsoft saw that convertible devices like the Surface Pro could replace most people laptops and tablet into 1 device, heck even desktop, and as technology progresses forward, it could potentially replace more people desktop, the moment you have a decent Nvidia and AMD GPU that can be put inside of such small device and still retain great battery life. To make this multi-world a reality, Steve Ballmer give 'carte blanche' to a visionary within Microsoft: Steven Sinofsky, full control of Windows. Windows 8 can be called: Steven Sinofsky's Windows.

Sadly, and this is the cost of taking risk, this is the cost of innovation, the days that someone excepted, or in this case Microsoft, didn't came true. People aren't ready to do this massive switch. People don't like change. They want a transition, and as much as I like Windows 8, Windows 8.0 had no transition. You had no tutorials, no setup on the start screen on what you can do, included Windows 8 Apps were barebone, no videos showing how it would work (all this, Windows 7 had), the TV ads assumed that you knew Windows 8 already (Windows 7 had those 7sec ads), And windows 8, has no tutorials to get you started. Windows 8.1 kinda added the tutorial part, and did massive improvement by collecting telemetry data, and Steven Sinofsky was kick-ed out. But it is what it is.

I guess the lesson to learn is that you want a visionary, you have to be open to it, but you can't let a visionary 'carte blanche' on a product, as you won't have a transition period or process for the user to adapt, and allow the market to develop. I still think Windows 8 ideas and concepts is the future, and if you don't, then you are stuck in time. It is. And the next step, which Motorola and ASUS tried and failed to push, was a smartphone be the device that will replace everything. it will come. But Windows 8, like Vista was too ahead of its time. The good news, is that usually Microsoft gets there. Windows 98 is a perfect example. Windows 7 shows that adding 3 years for technology to catch up you can have an awesome experience, and what 3 years of polishing and optimizing can do. In the case of Windows 9, I believe, with the limited information I have from it, like everyone else here, will take a few steps back, but you must be foolish to think that will be permanent. It will be the OS that will fit in between Windows 7 and Windows 8. That transition OS. Sure, maybe, when Surface Pro type of devices are started to be discovered by the mass consumer, and the market changes, that version of Windows won't be identical to Windows 8, which is fine, but the ideas and concept would be there.

Regardless of the fact, Windows 9 will be more business and power user focused. Windows 10 will be about innovation, and Windows 11 will be back to power user and business focus and so on and so forth, as business are all sync to a 6 year upgrade cycle. So it leaves 3 years of openness for Microsoft to experiment, and innovate, while the following OS would be about polishing that experience, change things to make it better, and so on.

I'm sorry but having an os that nothing can run, such as vista and 95, that's not be because it's ahead of its time, it's poorly planned. There's a reason James Cameron waited 10+ years to release avatar. The technology wasn't there to make a good CGI experience. If M.S saved vista for a later date, or released a lite version, people would've been happy. And moving onto windows 8. It's not the transition thats the problem. Neither is the lack of tutorials. I used the developer preview. I used the release preview. And I am now using 8.1. I got used to it. I learned all the shortcuts. Hell I even defended it on the internet just like you are doing right now. But the day I decided to install a start menu from ninite. com just to try it out was the day I decided to forget about metro. If you're using Windows 8.1 right now I suggest downloading that start menu I did. Just try it out and see for yourself if having a start menu is useful for you or not. Windows 8 is a great os but metro kills it

[GoodBytes]

I'm sorry but having an os that nothing can run, such as vista and 95, that's not be because it's ahead of its time, it's poorly planned. There's a reason James Cameron waited 10+ years to release avatar. The technology wasn't there to make a good CGI experience. If M.S saved vista for a later date, or released a lite version, people would've been happy. And moving onto windows 8. It's not the transition thats the problem. Neither is the lack of tutorials. I used the developer preview. I used the release preview. And I am now using 8.1. I got used to it. I learned all the shortcuts. Hell I even defended it on the internet just like you are doing right now. But the day I decided to install a start menu from ninite. com just to try it out was the day I decided to forget about metro. If you're using Windows 8.1 right now I suggest downloading that start menu I did. Just try it out and see for yourself if having a start menu is useful for you or not. Windows 8 is a great os but metro kills it

FINALLY! Interesting view, and you do raise a good point.

You know what, I'll give the start menu a try! Seriously.

[polke45]

I'm sorry but having an os that nothing can run, such as vista and 95, that's not be because it's ahead of its time, it's poorly planned. There's a reason James Cameron waited 10+ years to release avatar. The technology wasn't there to make a good CGI experience. If M.S saved vista for a later date, or released a lite version, people would've been happy. And moving onto windows 8. It's not the transition thats the problem. Neither is the lack of tutorials. I used the developer preview. I used the release preview. And I am now using 8.1. I got used to it. I learned all the shortcuts. Hell I even defended it on the internet just like you are doing right now. But the day I decided to install a start menu from ninite. com just to try it out was the day I decided to forget about metro. If you're using Windows 8.1 right now I suggest downloading that start menu I did. Just try it out and see for yourself if having a start menu is useful for you or not. Windows 8 is a great os but metro kills it

 

I too prefer start menu over metro. Metro live app is somewhat a step forward of floating widget from Vista and Windows 7. I use apps more often than floating widget, which I think the metro app takes up less resource than the widget. Once a while, I do go to the Metro to check any update just by opening metro rather than opening the app completely. With that said though, I think what make start menu to be far superior than metro is start menu is like a mini file manager. Anything that you need to add/delete/copy/move can easily be done. For Metro, every times I need to move, I need to restart metro for it to update. It made file management a hassle.

[mizifih]

I too prefer start menu over metro. Metro live app is somewhat a step forward of floating widget from Vista and Windows 7. I use apps more often than floating widget, which I think the metro app takes up less resource than the widget. Once a while, I do go to the Metro to check any update just by opening metro rather than opening the app completely. With that said though, I think what make start menu to be far superior than metro is start menu is like a mini file manager. Anything that you need to add/delete/copy/move can easily be done. For Metro, every times I need to move, I need to restart metro for it to update. It made file management a hassle.

 

Well, you can always use Windows Explorer, and it's as easy to access as the Start Menu, just press Flag+E. Just go crazy on your Favorites

 

I only use Metro when I press the Flag button and start typing for a App to start, I mean, not an App, a proper software