Windows 9 - 8K Display Ready.

[MegaDave91]

No, because there will be no windows 20. Why can't people understand this?

 

THERE IS ONLY ONE WINDOWS

it will be called Windows and it will be the last OS you need because they will no longer be doing this numbered-update version scheme any more.

Alright, so no number scheme anymore; does iteration work for you then?

[Enderman]

all im getting is "windows 9"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2603123/forget-windows-9-and-windows-phone-will-it-all-be-called-just-plain-windows.html

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/5/6109573/will-the-next-version-of-windows-just-be-called-windows

[Enderman]

Alright, so no number scheme anymore; does iteration work for you then?

Why do you have a problem with microsoft future proofing windows? They might as well do it now so that programs have time to adapt and they don't need to change anything when more people get 4k and 8k displays.

They're doing a good thing...

[Snickerzz]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2603123/forget-windows-9-and-windows-phone-will-it-all-be-called-just-plain-windows.html

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/5/6109573/will-the-next-version-of-windows-just-be-called-windows

thats just speculation, as is "windows 9" guess we will just have to wait and see

[GoodBytes]

Why the need to optimize for 8K? 1080p is still the standard resolution and I wouldn't even call 1440p mainstream, not to mention 4k which is still extremely new. How long do they intent to keep 9 as the latest OS?

Excellent point. When Microsoft presented Windows 8, with 4K display support. Many had the same reaction as you. Now, we have 5K display, fairly affordable (for what it is).

See, this is the challenge that Microsoft faces. Windows 8 is a perfect example of this. When Windows 8 was in development, even release, we had everything pointing that, devices like Surface Pro, would take market, because everyone is buying tablets. Laptop and desktop sales were dropping almost like an arrow straight down. While Tablets were gaining more and more market share. So Windows 8 GUI was designed for being that OS for sure next gen device. Sadly, it didn't work. But it shows that Microsoft needs to see 3 years ahead. Vista is another example. The OS was clearly designed for computers of tomorrow. Microsoft clearly thought, that hardware would catch up. But sadly, that didn't happen... until Windows 7, 3 year later. But it eventually did, and Vista brought new foundation for Windows to stand on. And look at Windows 8. Hate the Start screen or not, the back end of the OS is just phenomenal. And I am not the only one saying this. And, it is a very robust OS. Example: remove your drive that has Windows 8 on it, and put it on a different computer. Like completely different specs. It will boot successfully and get all if not, almost all the drivers and operate like you natively installed it on that system. While previous version of Windows, would simply BSOD on you.

Microsoft sees during the 3 years coming, starting in 2015 (assuming nothing changes in the model of Windows releases) that Windows 9 will be out, 8K displays will arrived at some point during those 3 years. If not, then at least developers will have an environment to work with for when Windows 10 will be released, and 8K display becomes a display that has some level of market share.

[GoodBytes]

Bad example. Microsoft had the opportunity to fine tune the os to compliment the high DPI display on the surface line. Some parts of Windows were blurry, didn't work with touch input and completely ignored pen input. They did a piss poor job at best. It had nothing top do with consumer demand, it had everything to do with Microsoft delivering a product they felt people would buy.

You do raise a good point. Hopefully, Windows 9 will correct that. But the infrastructure was there, and the core of GUI of Windows was supporting it. But, yes. It is unacceptable, skipping this. And what surprised me, is that 8.1 still didn't have it. But oh well.

[GoodBytes]

Guys. Even if it end up being called Windows Live Essential Ultimate 2015 Human Edition, it doesn't mater.. until the official name is released, we will call it Windows 9, and the next one Windows 10, for simplicity sakes, and general and easy understanding

[MegaDave91]

Why do you have a problem with microsoft future proofing windows? They might as well do it now so that programs have time to adapt and they don't need to change anything when more people get 4k and 8k displays.

They're doing a good thing...

 

To be honest, I was not aware Windows 9 was going to be the last OS and from there on after incremental tweaks and upgrades be made (if I understand this correctly). 

 

There's nothing wrong with "future proofing", but having read what @GoodBytes said (below) that MS sees 3 years in advance and expects 8k displays on the market by then, then I guess it makes more sense.

 

[Enderman]

To be honest, I was not aware Windows 9 was going to be the last OS and from there on after incremental tweaks and upgrades be made (if I understand this correctly). 

 

There's nothing wrong with "future proofing", but having read what @GoodBytes said (below) that MS sees 3 years in advance and expects 8k displays on the market by then, then I guess it makes more sense.

Windows will become something very different. Hopefully they take more steps (like compatibility with 8k) to make it the best OS for a long time.

[Maslofski]

holy balls, my screen is 1360x768!

[Sharp_3yE]

Why the need to optimize for 8K? 1080p is still the standard resolution and I wouldn't even call 1440p mainstream, not to mention 4k which is still extremely new. How long do they intent to keep 9 as the latest OS?

You don't build your next OS for now. You must build it for the future. Otherwise I one or two years even it could be out dated.

[Sharp_3yE]

Very few people use windows 8 compared to 7. Windows 8 was not a success, so that's why they are stopping development of it.

And the fact that they are making windows 'future proof' for 8k panels means we won't have the same issues we have with 4k on windows 7 or 8 today, when 8k becomes mainstream. This also means support for 4k, 2.5k and anything below 8k.

First, this is good news and I don't understand what people are complaining about. Second, win8 development stopped but 8.1 is still going strong.

[Enderman]

First, this is good news and I don't understand what people are complaining about. Second, win8 development stopped but 8.1 is still going strong.

Yes I agree it is good news. Future proofing as much as possible is always a good thing.

 

But they stopped developing windows 8.1 too. The service pack that was rumoured to come out was cancelled and they are now moving to work on "windows".

[MegaDave91]

You don't build your next OS for now. You must build it for the future. Otherwise I one or two years even it could be out dated.

Which is why I asked how long they expect 9 to be the latest OS. 

 

Also, my theory was if it has taken 1440p this long to get this far and yet still not mainstream, then it will probably take 4k equally as long if not longer. So 8k optimization made zero sense to me for this reason, but like I said in an earlier post; if MS sees 8K monitors on the horizon in 3 years then it makes sense to optimize for 8k now.

[qwertywarrior]

3rd party apps wont be ready ..........

[Valentyn]

By the time 8K becomes mainstream, Windows 20 will be the latest OS.

 

1440p still isn't mainstream...

 

In Japan they're starting 8K broadcasts next year, and already have 13" OLED 8K displays ( which are the current smallest), at 60hz, and 120hz.

Someone has to push boundaries, and for all the faults of Windows, this 8K support is fantastic! Now 3rd party developers just need to get on board as well, even if only as much as they have for Apple.

[c.bert]

Not really something they should've spent time on...

Have you tried using a 4K display with windows 8 everything is way too small so it is kind of necessary that windows 9 is prepared for 8K because with the cyclical terribleness that windows 10 could offer the platform will be used way into 2121 and further

[juretrn]

No more UI scaling problems? Awesome.

[LlamaDom]

But will they make I easier for third party applications to scale to the correct dpi settings (I'm looking at you Adobe...)

[fojacko]

Why are people son angry at ms?

You complain about high res scaling on win 7/8/8.1 so, ms are just making sure that it will support every monitor, i dont see the issue here. The OS isn't even technically announced yet yet, so its not like they're just sitting on their asses working on pointless features when they're on a tight deadline. If they rushed it you'd complain, so just shut up.

[LukaP]

Why are people son angry at ms?

You complain about high res scaling on win 7/8/8.1 so, ms are just making sure that it will support every monitor, i dont see the issue here. The OS isn't even technically announced yet yet, so its not like they're just sitting on their asses working on pointless features when they're on a tight deadline. If they rushed it you'd complain, so just shut up.

this. i come to this thread. all happy microsoft is finally advancing in the correct direction, only to see people complain about it... WTF!?!? a few months ago, everyone was complaing about no support for 4K in 8(.1) and now, when they futureproof for 8K, everyone goes mad, how can they waste development time on this feature?! 

 

To be honest, 8 is a really great OS behind the scenes, the only thing it has against it is the retarded interface on the desktop. so MS doesnt have alot to fix to make a great OS. and the fact is, they will not release full OS' anymore. 8.1 was the start of it, and the next "Windows" however they end up calling it, will not have a successor, they will just upgrade and add features. so far, they have upgraded the UI back to normal, and they added support for stuff in the future. WHY ARE YOU COMPLAINING?

 

really, the last few weeks, whichever company announces something, people will complain here it seems. just because you cant read graphs, marketing BS or comprehend what companies are striving for in the future, does not mean they are failing at what they do... they are far from failing. MS is fixing their shit now.

 

But will they make I easier for third party applications to scale to the correct dpi settings (I'm looking at you Adobe...)

its not on MS to do that. its on the customers to demand the programs they use to become highdpi aware. (and adobe is already working on it just so you know)

[Sidiox]

Although this is good I wonder how many app icons will actually be scaled up. Because that is the real problem for me on my Surface Pro 3. Lots of UI elemtents look very sharp on that about 1440p screen, but stuff like Device Manager looks crappy, because it is nog scaled up. They better scale every single thing up this time. Also Win 8 is a very good piece of software. Its biggest problem is lack of custimisability. It works if you don't want to change anything, but as soon as you change 1 bit it all kinda falls apart.

Example: normal people have the taskbar on the bottom, all the hot corners (charms bar and app switcher) make sense then. But the people who run with the taskbar on the side are screwed over, since it doesn't work well with that; the bottom left start button corner stays active and is annoying, either the app switcher or charms bar cover up your taskbar. That is my true problem with Win8, those hotcorners are fixed and not changeable.

 

I reallllyyy hope that Win9 will be a cheap upgrade, and also available for the Surface line. I just bought my Surface Pro3 and Win8.1 Pro for my desktop. I don't want this OS to become "abandon ware(ik we will still get security updates and such)" this fast 

[PopReference]

8k beige folder icons, Greeeeeaaaaa....

[RelentlessAF]

Have you tried using a 4K display with windows 8 everything is way too small so it is kind of necessary that windows 9 is prepared for 8K because with the cyclical terribleness that windows 10 could offer the platform will be used way into 2121 and further

Not really, 8K isn't in the psoition 4K was. 4K was around for quite awhile and just super expensive. 8K is new and more of a "because we can" 8K probably won't be in the majority of households at any point in it's life. It's just silly. Majority of users will max out at 4K hell most of them won't even cross the threshold into 1440p. All in all they could've put that time and effort into something else for the OS.

[GoodBytes]

Not really, 8K isn't in the psoition 4K was. 4K was around for quite awhile and just super expensive. 8K is new and more of a "because we can" 8K probably won't be in the majority of households at any point in it's life. It's just silly. Majority of users will max out at 4K hell most of them won't even cross the threshold into 1440p. All in all they could've put that time and effort into something else for the OS.

Perhaps you are correct. But I think of it, this way: You know how Nvidia and AMD shows these cool demos with physics, light, destructible objects, hair, and so on. Up to now, no games really implements them (maybe 1 or 2, here and there, but no full implementation, and continues to implement them in the studio next projects). I mean it's actually very challenging to implement, and is GPU intensive at the moment of the release of these featured demos. You could argue that, Nvidia and AMD could put those resources somewhere else, as it's too intensive for today reality of gaming. But, if you think about it. If you look at demos of new GPU a couple of years back, like with the GeForce 8000 days, several things are now in pretty much many AAA title games. It is all about pushing the envelop, to push developers to join in. Sure it's late. But it will come. Else, probably our games would look like 8 years from now, today, as everyone would just not bother. "If this feature can't be implemented in our game and keep a solid 120fps experience on Intel integrated graphics, then we don't bother", is not the way to go.

For example, if I decided to develop a high-DPI aware software, and I go "I want to make it 8K ready! I think it will be a great selling point". And I do this NOW, on Windows 7 or 8, then forget it. Windows itself won't allow me to test my software under the needed DPI to adjust the layout, to make sure that my high-resolution images are loaded, etc. Heck I can't make my software icons larger than 256x256. But, with Windows 9, I now can. It does offer me the possibility to develop it, and have my software ready when the times come. Sure maybe, only 100 people have 8K displays by the end of like of Windows 9, but maybe this is my market. And that 100 people will quickly grow, much like 1080 displays. And what 1080p used to be "Oh wow cool, a bit over kill, but the experience is worth it", turned into "If this product has a resolutionbellow 1080p, might as well make it disappear form the face of the universe".

It's always good to push the industry forward. I recall the old days, pre-Vista. Where we had S3 and VIA and Intel "graphic chip", which even back then, we enthusiast, would not even consider these are graphic chips. They could not even play DVDs smoothly. We were using the same old Pentium 4 for years and years and years. All Intel was doing, is dumping more transistors (ok, I know not that simple), and boosting the clock, increasing the power requirement, but no innovation. It wasn't needed per se. Finding a dedicated GPU, even those crappy low end ones, where actually hard, in stores. Sure you COULD find that 1 gaming laptop, yay. But there wasn't much. When Vista came out, if you didn't have a high-end desktop computer using the latest technologies. Vista, forced OEMs to stop screwing around and selling over priced crap, and forced some manufactures to no start innovating. VIA and S3 are gone as they decided to give up, and Intel actually put effort in making a graphics solution that we can consider when building a system for non-gaming purposes. We know that it will play 1080p videos perfectly fine, we know that Windows will always run, we know that as more and more software become GPU rendered, or hardware accelerated, such as even Office 2013, and our web browsers, that everything will work.

For many many years, games were doing that. Remember Crysis? And that is just back then. Sure, you have game engines that showed these super cool demos, and we dream, but are games currently release actually look this good? Not really. Not saying they look awful, but not as good, all in order to provide easier console support, or maximize PC sales.

Anyway, that is my view.