Windows 9 - 8K Display Ready.

[flibberdipper]

1024x600 FTW!!!

[GoodBytes]

and that stuff is getting fixed... and seriously, do you think allowing bigger size icons took them years of dev time? this is a 1 day job at most...

Well...

ICO image format is a package system that regroups a bunch of images, and the OS picks the right size to display.

You can create an icon of any size.... but larger the icon, the larger the size on disk it takes. To reduce it, and increase load time, you want to compress the icon. So the OS needs to support a compression algorithm, else the icon won't show. Since Vista, for the 256x256 icons, Windows support a PNG compression. If you take that icon and put it under XP, it won't show. You'll get that blank icon being displayed. If you don't do the PNG compress, it now show under XP, but you'll have a large file size, especially if you have all the sizes form 16x16 all the way up to 256x256, in all color modes.

So Windows 9 could support a different or improved compression technique for the larger icons it now support. So that takes time to implement.

In addition, Explorer (the GUI engine of Windows), won't display any icon larger than 256x256 in Vista and up (well now up to Win8), so if you do an icon of a single format of 768x768, it will take the icon and scale it down to 256x256, as this is the largest icon it will show. If you want to try, on your desktop, assuming you have files/folder/program shortcut on there, hit the control key, and scroll upwards with your mouse wheel. You'll notice the icons getting bigger and bigger, but after 256x256 it stops, even if you put a 768x768 icon.

Also, you need to provide support for the OS DPI. If in my software I want to load and icon, or extract and load one from a DLL or EXE file (say I want to use a Windows icon, in my software), I can only get a 256x256 version of it. Even if another large format is available. Sure, I COULD code my own icon loader, and now I can pull any format I want.. but I am not building an icon editor or viewer, I just want an icon being displayed in my program.

So the APIs needs to be updated. And that takes time, as you have to make sure at 100%, that adding such support, won't break other software, currently using the command.

What if a program call the API to get a 256x256 icon, and stores it in a memory buffer of the size of a 256x256 icon (let's say) that it expects to load (say an icon from Windows), and now, when you run the program in Windows 9, it crashes, as the buffer size allocated for the icon it wanted to load is too small, as the Windows API is now sending the application the 768x768 icon. So you have to keep support. If a new API code needs to be created, and so be it, but the code behind the API needs to be coded, and tested. And another problem is, you don't want to create a billion and one APIs. So you have to think, if there is a way to use the current APIs first, and if there is a way you can do something about it. So that is a puzzle right there as well.

Then of course, you need to get the graphics team to work on the new icons of the OS, so all the icons of Windows, which is a huge amount, are available in higher size. But again, you have to make sure that the current API won't have a problem. And then what? make 2 version of system files, one for old programs and one for new programs based on which API the program uses, JUST for icons. Then now you need to support 2 versions of the same thing. So if there is a bug somewhere in one of the DLL files functions, you need to update them on 2 files, just because you have a larger icon version. So sadly, it's not a 1 mouse click solution.

[Harryejp]

What is the point of this if there isn't even any 8k content?

[RH00D]

What is the point of this if there isn't even any 8k content?

This is Windows being able to have proper scaling support for 8K displays at very high DPI. This is like how a smartphone can have 1920x1080 display in a very small screen but yet everything is not absolutely tiny. Because Android, iOS, Windows Phone, etc. all have proper scaling support. Traditional desktop OSes have lagged behind in this regard. Most OSes were designed with 96 DPI in mind. So at 96 DPI, the higher the resolution you go the smaller things become. So when you want to go higher resolution you need to go higher DPI, so that objects on the screen will be normal size and not tiny.

 

Modern UI apps and GUI elements are already high DPI aware in Windows 8.x but this is about making the desktop better support high DPI.

 

You don't need 8K content (like movies) to have a reason to run your computer resolution at 8K. Your computer OS and applications are the "content" in this case.

[dizmo]

This thread was a pretty good laugh. I have no idea why people would complain that they're ahead of the curve when it comes to scaling and being 8k ready.

Oh no! Heaven forbid they actually have support for things that are still in infancy.

Oy.

 

 

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.

1440p will never be mainstream.

4k will be, and it's because of the way it's marketed. I have multiple friends who want 4k. Computer, TV. Because it's a TV standard, those that are more casual about tech will purchase monitors of that resolution because it's what they hear talked about more often. They don't even know what 1440p is.

[sof006]

lol win8 aint even ready for 3k and there out here preppin for 8k, idiots...

How so? Release Windows 9 and make it 8K ready. Looks like they're future proofing.

[Solkia]

technology has gone too far

 

it must be stopped before it's too late for our eyes

[Nineshadow]

-/-

What they basically implemented was higher resolution icons,which was pretty much a matter of creating a few new constructors using different,updated parameters.(and some little changes there and there)

Pretty much :

icon x = new icon(768, 768, Icon_Path); 

Or however they had it implemented.

The old constructors are still there.

 

Consider constructing a big building.If you keep going and going without having an adequate foundation,the entire thing will collapse.

Same story here.

[dlf]

How about the latest distro's of linux, Windows, and Mac OsX be ready for 200k, that should last couple decades, if not centruies. :P

[Paralectic]

How much space is that going to take? I dont want 10gb of high res icons when i still using 1080p

I think there will be an advanced scaling technology by then.

[Accursed Entity]

Nice thread, very informative and interesting news.

[GoodBytes]

What they basically implemented was higher resolution icons,which was pretty much a matter of creating a few new constructors using different,updated parameters.(and some little changes there and there)

Pretty much :

icon x = new icon(768, 768, Icon_Path); 

Or however they had it implemented.

The old constructors are still there.

 

Consider constructing a big building.If you keep going and going without having an adequate foundation,the entire thing will collapse.

Same story here.

As much as I want to agree with you. The API is stupid. Look it up. Using the old code you'll get 48x48 or 32x32 version of the icon only, and I think it doesn't have transparency either, if I recall correctly. It's been a long time. I guess it's one of those API that the company regrets for not making it well thought out, and now have to live with it. Hopefully, an Ex version of it will be out where you can specify the size and color, and load it up.

And no, it's not as easy as you said. It is like I said.

[MegaDave91]

This thread was a pretty good laugh. I have no idea why people would complain that they're ahead of the curve when it comes to scaling and being 8k ready.

Oh no! Heaven forbid they actually have support for things that are still in infancy.

Oy.

 

 

1440p will never be mainstream.

4k will be, and it's because of the way it's marketed. I have multiple friends who want 4k. Computer, TV. Because it's a TV standard, those that are more casual about tech will purchase monitors of that resolution because it's what they hear talked about more often. They don't even know what 1440p is.

If 4k monitors drop in price, then yes. I don't suspect any casual user is going to spend $600+ on a monitor (TV doesn't apply) just because it's the new craze in resolution, at least if there's anyone else out there like my Dad who's very careful with his money and whose mentality is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"...

 

I guess, however, if it's going to be the new mainstream resolution then prices would come down to a more digestible price for the casual user.

[TechyNiick]

As i said in a previous comment, i dont mind windows 8.1, Partly because i do not use the start screen, partly because when i do use it, it doesnt get on my nerves. Am i exited for windows 9? HELL YES. Can i wait? Also a yes. 

[dizmo]

If 4k monitors drop in price, then yes. I don't suspect any casual user is going to spend $600+ on a monitor (TV doesn't apply) just because it's the new craze in resolution, at least if there's anyone else out there like my Dad who's very careful with his money and whose mentality is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"...

 

I guess, however, if it's going to be the new mainstream resolution then prices would come down to a more digestible price for the casual user.

Not sure where you've been but they've been dropping extremely fast

They might if they want it to match their TV. My friends who are more casual users want 4k monitors, because they believe more is better. It's common.

There will always be people like your dad, just as there will be people who immediately buy the "next great thing"; that's why the industry progresses. There has to be demand for there to be supply.

[snes]

Why are people son angry at ms?

Probably because Windows 7 doesn't even look right on a 1080p screen. Change the DPI settings and all the icons will be off-center and only the font size changes which can mess up the whole UI.

 

Also, using XP on a 1400x1050 15" notebook (ASUS M6800) screen is pretty much what ruined my eyes. Text was super tiny if I used the screen's native resolution and XP at 100% and upping the DPI settings made everything look like muddy shit. That was a 2500€ Notebook at the time ($3208, today) but it was barely useable because of Microsoft.

[SuperfastJellyfish]

What does it mean?

It means that the 512x512 icons that MacOS support for its retina display is no match compared to Windows 9 new mighty 768x768 full color icons.

 

Good to see you're upholding your position as resident M$ fanboy/girl. Can you make a news post without making pointless and mostly redundant comments? It makes me take you less seriously. 'no match'? 'full colour'? I hope you realise that Microsoft is thoroughly on the late bus when it comes to high resolution environments, and is seemingly losing ground on consumer trust and support.

[TAK]

.

[Guest]

Or so they say.

 

Just because there's an option to change the resoltuion to 8K doesn't count as '8K ready,' Micro$oft.

[Guest]

How about the latest distro's of linux, Windows, and Mac OsX be ready for 200k, that should last couple decades, if not centruies. :P

 

OS X does have great scaling - even 4K is already fully supported as of this March, and Windows still sucks at 1080p

[GoodBytes]

 

OS X does have great scaling - even 4K is already fully supported as of this March, and Windows still sucks at 1080p

All version of Windows support 8K. It support whatever resolution your graphics can push.

By "8K ready", it means that you have the DPI scaling appropriate for it, and the icons size to match it (and display it).

[Guest]

All version of Windows support 8K. It support whatever resolution your graphics can push.

By "8K ready", it means that you have the DPI scaling appropriate for it, and the icons size to match it (and display it).

Exactly what I said earlier- 8K support means more than technically having the option in Control Panel.

[Tonylu1595]

lol need this, cause japan

[Phillyphries]

Windows is expected to release in 2015, correct?

 

I think higher resolution panels should be a bit cheaper by then. Then by 2016+ you will get more adopters and more people buying high resolution panels as they get cheaper. 4k panels in particular.