Rumor: Windows 9 'Threshold' expected in April 2015

By on January 12, 2014, 4:24 PM
microsoft, windows, rumor, threshold, windows 9

Microsoft is reportedly targeting an April 2015 launch for the operating system sequel to Windows 8.1, codenamed 'Threshold'. According to Paul Thurrott, Microsoft is trying to put the less-than-fantastic launch of Windows 8.1 behind it by calling the OS Windows 9, and although it hasn't entered the development phase, the company has already started planning ahead.

In April 2014, which is just a few months away, Microsoft will hold its annual BUILD conference and it's rumored that the company's long term vision will be presented at the show. This will include the first look at what Microsoft has planned for Windows 9, alongside more stuff on Windows Phone and Xbox.

Addressing the criticisms surrounding Windows 8 will be a major focus of Windows 9, and the OS is expected to bring "Metro 2.0", a major update to the design language used from Windows 8 onwards set to fix issues. As previously reported, this update may introduce a feature that allows Metro-style applications to be run on the desktop as floating windows, rather than just full-screen apps.

The Start menu may also return in Windows 9 'Threshold', or even earlier in a second 'Update 2' for Windows 8.1. 'Threshold' updates should also come to Windows Phone and Xbox, but it won't necessarily bring the eventual merge of Windows RT and Windows Phone.

Currently Microsoft is working on 'Update 1' for Windows 8.1, which is essentially a free service pack that will likely debut in April 2014 alongside Windows Phone 8.1. The development of both OSes is nearing completion, so it shouldn't be too long before we'll get our hands on updates for Microsoft's main platforms.




User Comments: 62

Got something to say? Post a comment
gamoniac said:

This is good news. Start menu's come back is welcomed, and allowing Modern UI to run in Desktop mode will restore the its name sake -- Windows, while allowing apps to run and deployed in a safe and uniform manner. via the Store

Many people object to Modern UI but it does offer very tangible performance benefit. If you compare the CPU utilization when Netflix runs in Modern UI vs in desktop mode (IE), for example, the difference is 2% vs 8% on my desktop.

SirGCal SirGCal said:

Is it me or are they going a little fast? They keep wanting more money for my 'upgrade'? XP/2k went for how many years? Now their best yet (7) is possibly obsolete how fast? (When did 8 arrive?, and now a potential move from 8 to 9...) Maybe it's just me but it seems to be speeding up. Still it better be pretty nice for me to give up 7 (read 'pay for 9'

Teaco Teaco said:

Is it me or are they going a little fast?

Was thinking the same thing, but after referencing the Wikipedia article, it seems every 2-3 years is the norm for release cycles with Windows.

5 people like this | NotParker NotParker said:

I use Win7. I spent a few hours with Win8 and Win8.1 restoring someones laptop and updating things.

WIndows 8 sucks. Totally unproductive compare to Win7.

I'm not a Windows basher. I used NT4 in beta. 2000 in beta ... XP at beta 2, etc etc.

I wouldn't pay one cent for 8 or 8.1.

Guest said:

It's not that they're going fast, but rather they're returning to normal. Windows 95, 98, and ME in '95, '98, and 2000 respectively, as well as NT in '96, with Windows 2000 taking over for ME (for good reason) and bridging the NT path.

Then XP in late 2001. That's a new OS every two or three years.

Vista was stuck in development for so long that people got used to XP being around forever, but Microsoft had not intended for that to happen. Indeed, it's made people more reluctant to upgrade, because now they had an OS that was stable and had the majority of the features they wanted. That's why there's a lot of articles sort of freaking out about April's end of support for XP, because there's still so many installs of it out there.

I would wager that a large number of people 'upgrade' only when they buy a new PC, rather than because they want Microsoft's shiny new release, because that's all they can get from major retailers unless they put forth extra effort. Certainly all the bargains only seem to apply to systems with the latest OS installed.

Starting with XP (decent), then Vista (awful), then Win7 (decent), then Win8 (awful)... I want to believe the best of 9, but with their lowest-common-denominator approach of wanting every device to look the same, even though smartphones are always going to be less capable than desktop PCs... I think I'll be disappointed.

fimbles fimbles said:

Got to admit, battlefield 4 was a stuttery mess for me on windows 7.

Much smoother performance on windows 8.1

Gaara Gaara said:

I use Win7. I spent a few hours with Win8 and Win8.1 restoring someones laptop and updating things.

WIndows 8 sucks. Totally unproductive compare to Win7.

I'm not a Windows basher. I used NT4 in beta. 2000 in beta ... XP at beta 2, etc etc.

I wouldn't pay one cent for 8 or 8.1.

I agree with you !! windows 8 is suck, and windows 7 is perfect!! of course is base in windows xp that why. .. by the way im impress that you say windows 8 is suck and they have't remove your comment. I guess this is not lie neowin propaganda.

9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I'm not a fan of Windows 8.1 on the desktop. Its because of the full screen Metro windows and getting stuck in them. (Can't find the 'X' to close, 'Escape' key doesn't escape, or 'Backspace' key doesn't back up a panel.) I use it at work, and after a few days of frustration I installed Start is Back. That fixed 99% of my problems. I had to install Adobe Reader because the default MS Reader was taking up the whole screen. Now, I just need to find an audio player to replace Windows Media Player / Xbox Player. And to find a picture viewing application to replace the built-in photo viewer.

I can't really put my finger on what I like about it on the desktop. Possibly its that it feels faster and the task bar makes better use of multiple monitors. But that's not a whole lot of compliments.

My Windows 8 experience leaves me feeling apprehensive about Windows 9.

tipstir tipstir, TS Ambassador, said:

So they can't make Windows 9 128-bit as there isn't enough software around to take advantage so it's the same old 32/64-bit CPU mix support. So Windows 9 should allow you to have the power of 9 OS without Metro GUI if you don't have touch screen monitor or touch screen laptop.

I don't see the thinking there at Microsoft I know I gave them a hand full with my complaint over them on Windows 8 phone. Never got it and to get a refund from them directly just go processed last night after waiting over a week and no one from MS ever contacted me. I got 3 emails telling me what I already know late last night. If I didn't get the phone by mail then issue me a full refund. They told me I could reorder I don't think so. I'll take my business somewhere else.

My Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Tablet will stay with 7 for now. I am in no rush to put 8.1 on it. All my 5 quad core desktops run 7 64-bit, dual core 2x laptops run 7 64-bit, single core 2x netbooks run 7 -32-bit. I use to have more systems but they're RIP they work but too old to really use.

My TCP/IP for 7 runs as fast as 8 and 8.1. System is runs smooth and clean both 7 and 8 suffer from poor system clogging. I keep all 7 systems clean every day them that way. Still MS limits the TCP.sys to 10 MSC, I have one set to 250 since my enterprise wired VPN router can do 350 on NAT side. Again to me 8 was a test out in the wild. But I want them to offer systems with a choice at boot. Load Windows 7 or Load Windows 8. Give us a dual boot option . Leave Media Center alone comes in handy if you ditch CATV or SATV or OTA HD-DTV.

Nobina Nobina said:

These are good news. They are planning to bring start menu back and apps won't be fullscreen. Everything I wanted from Windows 8/8.1.

1 person liked this | Railman said:

Another excuse not to buy a PC for another year?

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

These are good news. They are planning to bring start menu back and apps won't be fullscreen. Everything I wanted from Windows 8/8.1.

That would be pretty awesome if it was a free upgrade from any OS, not just Windows 8. Look at OS X Mavericks, people with OS X 10.6 could upgrade to it. If MS makes us pay for needed upgrades, I, and many others, will be very bitter and mad.

je29836 said:

SteamOS will shit on windows 9

1 person liked this | Joshw Joshw said:

I couldn't be mad if they decided to listen to their customers again.The reactions to the Xbox One and Win 8 prob made them snap back to reality.

3 people like this | ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

SteamOS will shit on windows 9

Babies often do that to their parents. Hopefully it will grow up soon enough.

1 person liked this | fimbles fimbles said:

I'm not a fan of Windows 8.1 on the desktop. Its because of the full screen Metro windows and getting stuck in them. (Can't find the 'X' to close, 'Escape' key doesn't escape, or 'Backspace' key doesn't back up a panel.) I use it at work, and after a few days of frustration I installed Start is Back. That fixed 99% of my problems. I had to install Adobe Reader because the default MS Reader was taking up the whole screen. Now, I just need to find an audio player to replace Windows Media Player / Xbox Player. And to find a picture viewing application to replace the built-in photo viewer.

I can't really put my finger on what I like about it on the desktop. Possibly its that it feels faster and the task bar makes better use of multiple monitors. But that's not a whole lot of compliments.

My Windows 8 experience leaves me feeling apprehensive about Windows 9.

Drag apps to the bottom of the screen to close

m4a4 m4a4 said:

These are good news. They are planning to bring start menu back and apps won't be fullscreen. Everything I wanted from Windows 8/8.1.

That would be pretty awesome if it was a free upgrade from any OS, not just Windows 8. Look at OS X Mavericks, people with OS X 10.6 could upgrade to it. If MS makes us pay for needed upgrades, I, and many others, will be very bitter and mad.

That's sure is a lot of entitlement. They don't need to make anything free, and there's no reason to be annoyed by that fact.

They will most likely do something similar to what that they did when Windows 8 first released (the 15$ upgrade price), rewarding the early adopters with a low price...

JC713 JC713 said:

That's sure is a lot of entitlement. They don't need to make anything free, and there's no reason to be annoyed by that fact.

They will most likely do something similar to what that they did when Windows 8 first released (the 15$ upgrade price), rewarding the early adopters with a low price...

True, but I feel like if MS really wanted to drive people off of XP and Windows 7 then they would make it free so that many people, especially businesses, would want to upgrade, and not see it as an expense. MS doesnt want to push updates to XP after April 2014, so they would want as many people off of it as possible. Also, the PC sector is dying and a free OS might breed some new life into it. Especially with Steam OS and OS X going free from now on, it would be a competitive choice to make it free.

Guest said:

Windows 8.1 + Start butom = Windows 9 :p

m4a4 m4a4 said:

True, but I feel like if MS really wanted to drive people off of XP and Windows 7 then they would make it free so that many people, especially businesses, would want to upgrade, and not see it as an expense. MS doesnt want to push updates to XP after April 2014, so they would want as many people off of it as possible. Also, the PC sector is dying and a free OS might breed some new life into it. Especially with Steam OS and OS X going free from now on, it would be a competitive choice to make it free.

We'll have to see what happens since we can't see the full picture like MS should be able to :P

1 person liked this | hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

Microsoft is a software company and their flagship is Windows. What do you expect them to release? You only complain about "fast" releases when you fear change or just never planned to upgrade anyway.

Next...

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

SteamOS will shit on windows 9

SteamOS has an enormous mountain to climb to be successful. It doesn't have the advantage of 90+% of AAA releases available. Just ask yourself "Why has Linux been such a dismal failure on the desktop?".

Cycloid Torus Cycloid Torus said:

XP? RIP. Win7 current keeper. Win8 tried one, nuff said. Win9, path from 7 - but watch out for the 'rental' gag. SteamOS might keep Redmond 'honest' - hope there will be a Win emulator.

1 person liked this | Raoul Duke Raoul Duke said:

One thing no one has mentioned is the way Microsoft does everything possible to get you to sign up for a Microsoft e-mail, cloud etc account in Win 8 & 8.1. Can't even download from the store without this account which links your computer with MS. I want to be able to use my computer with a local account. MS is in trouble. many useable OS's in their past with few turds, but already they have had to bury Vista, and now this article implies Win8/8.1 will be buried by calling the update Win 9. Innovation is great, but who are their testers? Surely not representative of most of their users. I have a MacBook Pro circa 2009 and the latest Maverick OS runs on it faster with less problems than the previous OS's. Enjoying Win7 again, but since the IE update to 11, IE crashes. Makes me wonder what the heck they are doing at MS that they cannot deliver what the majority of their users want that runs smoothly.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

So they can't make Windows 9 128-bit as there isn't enough software around to take advantage so it's the same old 32/64-bit CPU mix support.
If I may be so bold as to say the OS has to come first. There will not be any 128-bit applications until after the OS is released.

Once there is a 128-bit OS, all 32-bit applications will likely not be compatible. Thats what happened to the 16-bit applications when 64-bit came out. Loosing 32-bit compatibility would likely kill a big portion of the applications we still use today. However a good push toward 128-bit might speed things up a bit and get more 64-bit compatible applications. The obsolescence (End-Of-Life) of Windows XP may just be what we need, to put 32-bit in the grave once and for all. In my opinion it is a couple of years too early for 128-bit. There is still plenty of ground to cover with 64-bit.

Raoul Duke Raoul Duke said:

I for one would be very happy if they ended the production of the Microsoft 32-bit OS, and see many more 64 bit apps. Even MS Office 2010 is 32-bit, the 64-bit install is not recommended

1 person liked this | Guest said:

If Windows 9 brings back aero glass, then I will gladly consider it. If not, I'll stick with Windows 7.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Even MS Office 2010 is 32-bit, the 64-bit install is not recommended
Why is that? I've been using the 64-bit version for over 3 years without issues.

Guest said:

That would be pretty awesome if it was a free upgrade from any OS, not just Windows 8. Look at OS X Mavericks, people with OS X 10.6 could upgrade to it. If MS makes us pay for needed upgrades, I, and many others, will be very bitter and mad.

I think of it this way: when you buy a Mac you pay a premium for the hardware, but along with that you'll get your software (OS) for free. Microsoft only makes the OS (with the exception of the surface), so they cannot really afford to give their OS for free when they are not making much (if any) money from the hardware itself.

TitoBXNY TitoBXNY said:

Other than the Start Menu, Windows 8 and 8.1 have been decent. Not sure what all the fuss is about!

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

SteamOS might keep Redmond 'honest' - hope there will be a Win emulator.

Yes a strong emulator would make things interesting.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

SteamOS might keep Redmond 'honest' - hope there will be a Win emulator.
Yes a strong emulator would make things interesting.
Emulator? I missed reading that comment until now. Why would I switch to Steam OS and then still buy a Windows License to be used in an emulator? To me Steam OS would be an escape from needing the Windows License. That is if gaming is all the PC is used for. All though I do hope Steam OS allows for more than gaming. From what I hear there Steam OS does have a Desktop Mode.

1 person liked this | tipstir tipstir, TS Ambassador, said:

If I may be so bold as to say the OS has to come first. There will not be any 128-bit applications until after the OS is released.

Once there is a 128-bit OS, all 32-bit applications will likely not be compatible. Thats what happened to the 16-bit applications when 64-bit came out. Loosing 32-bit compatibility would likely kill a big portion of the applications we still use today. However a good push toward 128-bit might speed things up a bit and get more 64-bit compatible applications. The obsolescence (End-Of-Life) of Windows XP may just be what we need, to put 32-bit in the grave once and for all. In my opinion it is a couple of years too early for 128-bit. There is still plenty of ground to cover with 64-bit.

Just like 8-bit was drop with 16-bit as 32-bit. You know the story. But MS said a few years back that Windows 9 and 10 would be the first to offer 128-bit but yeah hardware would have to play catch-up. Wonder if 256-bit CPU would ever be made. But at this rate 32-bit is where everything is at now. Some 64-bit browsers like Pale Moon but flash is 32-bit kinda flip flop 32/64 32/64.

64-bit does have a lot of ground to cover just a slow process at best.

2 people like this | Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

Emulator? I missed reading that comment until now. Why would I switch to Steam OS and then still buy a Windows License to be used in an emulator? To me Steam OS would be an escape from needing the Windows License. That is if gaming is all the PC is used for. All though I do hope Steam OS allows for more than gaming. From what I hear there Steam OS does have a Desktop Mode.

Thinking more like Wine... does that need a windows license? I didn't think it did?

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Thinking more like Wine... does that need a windows license? I didn't think it did?
Yeah you are right, I was thinking VM instead of emulator.

9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

MS said a few years back that Windows 9 and 10 would be the first to offer 128-bit but yeah hardware would have to play catch-up.

I'm not ready to buy a PC with 1 billion gigabytes of RAM! (The limitation of a 64-Bit OS.) When I am I'll be ready for a 128-Bit computer system.

1 person liked this | cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Memory limitation is not the only limitation. Computational power will double, each time the bit level doubles.

64-bit computing

In computer architecture, 64-bit computing is the use of processors that have datapath widths, integer size, and memory addresses widths of 64 bits (eight octets). Also, 64-bit CPU and ALU architectures are those that are based on registers, address buses, or data buses of that size. From the software perspective, 64-bit computing means the use of code with 64-bit virtual memory addresses.

With 128-bit each one of those would double in capabilities, not just memory address widths.

3 people like this | Raoul Duke Raoul Duke said:

Why is that? I've been using the 64-bit version for over 3 years without issues.

Didn't know so I looked at what MS had to say:

"By default, Microsoft Office 2010 installs the 32-bit version of Office 2010 even if your computer is running 64-bit editions of Windows." "The 32-bit version of Office 2010 is the recommended option for most people, because it prevents potential compatibility issues with other 32-bit applications, specifically third-party add-ins that are available only for 32-bit operating systems." "Office 2010 provides support for the 32-bit version of Office 2010 programs running on 64-bit operating systems by using WOW64, a compatibility environment provided by the operating system that allows a 32-bit application to run on a Windows 64-bit operating system. Using the 32-bit version of Office 2010 allows people to continue to use existing third-party add-ins for Office that are 32-bit."

"What is in the 32-bit version of Office but is not included in the 64-bit version of Office?

  • ActiveX controls library, ComCtl This library contains ActiveX controls that are used to build solutions. It is most commonly used in the following Microsoft Office programs: Access, Excel, and Word.
  • SharePoint List control The list view in SharePoint Technology is not available to people using the 64-bit version of Office."

"The 64-bit version of Office 2010 is not compatible with any other 32-bit version of Office programs. As a result, you must first uninstall all 32-bit versions of Office programs before you install the 64-bit version of Office 2010. The Office 2010 disc includes both 32- and 64-bit versions of Office 2010.

  • ActiveX controls library, ComCtl Any solutions that use these controls do not work. No good alternatives are available for some of these controls.
  • Third-party ActiveX controls and add-ins None of these work with the 64-bit version of Office.

Note There is no 64-bit version of Visual Basic 6. As a result, many of these objects need to be ported and rewritten.

  • Visual Basic for Applications The only way that Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) that contains the Declare statement work in the 64-bit version of Office is if you update the code manually.
  • Compiled Access databases The .MDE and .ACCDE files, a common way for Access application developers to distribute solutions and protect their intellectually property, do not work in the 64-bit version of Office. You must contact the application vendor to have the vendor recompile, retest, and redistribute the solution in the 64-bit version.
  • Communicator integration If you install the 64-bit version of Office, certain Microsoft Office Communicator 2007 features that involve integration with Outlook are lost. For example, you cannot right-click a Communicator contact to schedule a meeting, send an e-mail message, or find previous conversations. This is because Office Communicator R2 is 32-bit, and Messaging Application Programming Interface (MAPI) calls do not cross the 32-/64-bit boundary.

Additionally, certain Microsoft Outlook 2010 features are unavailable with Communicator R2."

1 person liked this | Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

Even MS Office 2010 is 32-bit, the 64-bit install is not recommended
Why is that? I've been using the 64-bit version for over 3 years without issues.

I wanted to ask the exact same thing myself and I've looked at the response but it doesn't say anything that would stop me using it so I'll just ignore it. Thanks for the response Raoul.

Chazz said:

These are good news. They are planning to bring start menu back and apps won't be fullscreen. Everything I wanted from Windows 8/8.1.

That would be pretty awesome if it was a free upgrade from any OS, not just Windows 8. Look at OS X Mavericks, people with OS X 10.6 could upgrade to it. If MS makes us pay for needed upgrades, I, and many others, will be very bitter and mad.

I'm a bit confused here. Are you referring to Windows 8.1 or "Windows 9". I can't find anything that says "Windows 9" will be free for 8 users. That's welcoming news,if true,but, are you referring to the free update(GDR1) to Windows 8.1 instead?

Microsoft's entire business would have to change to do the things that these other companies do. Software sales is what Microsoft does for money. Hardware Sales fuel Apple's Wallets, Advertising fuels Google's wallets and video game sales fuels Valve's wallets. These are totally different type of companies(model wise) that just happen to be in the same sector. It would be nice of them to do so and I'd be first in line but, I just don't see it realistically happening. They do have the Microsoft store and this would bring in more users, but I'm not so sure their store is doing so hot. I wouldn't gamble on that.

Microsoft making Windows free is akin to Google removing ads after their next internal google.com update. Or Apple giving out the iPhone 6 to 3G and 3Gs users.

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

One thing no one has mentioned is the way Microsoft does everything possible to get you to sign up for a Microsoft e-mail, cloud etc account in Win 8 & 8.1. Can't even download from the store without this account which links your computer with MS.

That's pretty much a standard. There really are very few stores you don't have to log into to download something, and when the store is from the company making the OS, it's standard to have an account that's linked to multiple aspects of the OS as well as the store. That's how Google and Apple do it, Amazon does it on Kindle, ...

It's possible to use Windows 8 and 8.1 without a Microsoft account, but don't expect to get the Windows 8 functionality.

2 people like this | psycros psycros said:

I'm not a fan of Windows 8.1 on the desktop. Its because of the full screen Metro windows and getting stuck in them. (Can't find the 'X' to close, 'Escape' key doesn't escape, or 'Backspace' key doesn't back up a panel.) I use it at work, and after a few days of frustration I installed Start is Back. That fixed 99% of my problems. I had to install Adobe Reader because the default MS Reader was taking up the whole screen. Now, I just need to find an audio player to replace Windows Media Player / Xbox Player. And to find a picture viewing application to replace the built-in photo viewer.

I can't really put my finger on what I like about it on the desktop. Possibly its that it feels faster and the task bar makes better use of multiple monitors. But that's not a whole lot of compliments.

My Windows 8 experience leaves me feeling apprehensive about Windows 9.

Winamp for audio, XNView for picture files. You can't go wrong.

Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

I wanted to ask the exact same thing myself and I've looked at the response but it doesn't say anything that would stop me using it so I'll just ignore it. Thanks for the response Raoul.

Yes nice to see a list of things you miss out on but also have been using 64-bit Office for a while now. Definitely enjoying the increased virtual memory address space and it's been pretty stable for a while now.

There were a few little tweaks/hacks to get Sharepoint to play nice initially but I haven't had trouble with Sharepoint for a long time.

penn919 said:

SteamOS will shit on windows 9

One can only hope

Guest said:

Finally, I'm tired hearing intense debates comparing win7 vs win8.. with this, I really hope I can move from win7 to win9 without worries

1 person liked this | Teko03 said:

One thing no one has mentioned is the way Microsoft does everything possible to get you to sign up for a Microsoft e-mail, cloud etc account in Win 8 & 8.1. Can't even download from the store without this account which links your computer with MS. I want to be able to use my computer with a local account.

You have the option to use a local account in Windows 8, but you'll lose quite a bit of functionality in Windows 8. Also, you can create a Microsoft account without an @outlook.com, @live.com or @hotmail.com address. I used my G'Mail account to sign in when I had my WP7 device and Preview versions of Windows 8. You can still have a SkyDrive account as well without an MST based account.

1 person liked this | Chazz said:

One thing no one has mentioned is the way Microsoft does everything possible to get you to sign up for a Microsoft e-mail, cloud etc account in Win 8 & 8.1. Can't even download from the store without this account which links your computer with MS. I want to be able to use my computer with a local account.

You have the option to use a local account in Windows 8, but you'll lose quite a bit of functionality in Windows 8. Also, you can create a Microsoft account without an @outlook.com, @live.com or @hotmail.com address. I used my G'Mail account to sign in when I had my WP7 device and Preview versions of Windows 8. You can still have a SkyDrive account as well without an MST based account.

This is correct. My Microsoft account is an old Gmail account of mine. I've been using @gmail.com to log on to every microsoft service that I use(including hotmail) since Xbox(original) days.

Guest said:

With a lot of comments talking about emulators, remember Wine Is Not an Emulator.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Thanks for the terminology correction.

  • Virtual Machine(VM) = Hardware emulation which requires installation of an operating system
  • Emulator = Hardware and operating system emulation for specific applications

Wine is neither as it is a compatibility layer that requires neither type of emulation.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

I don't know yet how I feel about this announcement because its seems so early. Now I was never seeing Windows 8/8.1 as being the Devil or another Vista Incarnation as others do but then again im with them on the fact the Metro was annoying on my desktop at times till I just got used to typing everything I wanted and clicking on the search results.

In theory, this is sounding like a great upgrade to the previous OS that should at least in theory resolve most if not all the complaints circling Windows 8/8.1, but I feel its just a bit to early since we really have not even had 8 for that long.

Im actually more curious about the Windows 8.1 Service Pack 1 update than anything, if they bring back the start menu with it then I would feel at least a big portion of the complaints will disappear and the OS will jump in sales.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.