Windows 9

[Larsenex]

So I have seen that we may be getting a Windows 9 platform. Here is a link to Tweaktown's blurb about it.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/39861...wsletter&utm_medium=ttemail&utm_campaign=ttcs

Does anyone know any more information on it? Will it be 64bit? DX 11+? Do I get my start button back (looks like we do)?

Will it be lightweight enough for me to migrate from Win 7 64 Pro?

I know the folks here have better access to reliable information so I thought I would ask here.

 

[mailpup]

TechSpot already has an article and an ongoing discussion about this here: https://www.techspot.com/news/57807...veil-windows-9-threshold-on-september-30.html

 

[Jad Chaar]

It will be 64bit yes. I bet it will ship with DX12. Also I think MS noticed they failed with the windows 8 UI so the start menu is most likely coming back.

 

[mr.simonski]

I have the feeling Microsoft does the same Tick Tack thing which is done by Intel: They released Win98 which was good, then there was the bad WinME, Win2000 was very good again and I used it for a long time, WinXP was also very nice. Then came Win Vista, which was very bad, followed by Win 7 which is a really good substitute for WinXP. Win 8 was a failure, mainly because of too many UI changes - so hopefully Win 9 will be a great Windows version!

 

[SNGX1275]

@mr.simonski - Everyone likes to use that as evidence, and I think in a way it works, but really only for the XP, Vista, 7, 8 sequence. Point is you have to conveniently ignore a lot of things for that to work.

I don't know how far is feasible to go back, so I'll just go back as far as I have experience. Italics for ones nobody talks about.

Windows 95 - This is the first one I spent any real time on, and not much at that, but we have to remember there were 5 versions of 95 released. Everyone of them would have to suck to fit that 98 was good.
Windows NT 4 - Came out after 95 and before 98, more business oriented but didn't suffer the crashes like 9x did, I knew plenty of people that were running this on their desktops rather than 95 or 98 when I came to college in 1998.
Windows 98 - 2 versions of this, 98 and 98se. You'd have to pick and choose what version of 95 you are running with and what version of 98 you are going with to 'fit' that 98 was good. 98 was pretty bad, 98se was the 'good' one.
Windows 2000 - Sometimes gets mentioned when wanting to include Windows ME, however Windows 2000 is in the same class as NT4, it was a business OS. Still, if it is going to be included, it follows 98. So it doesn't fit with the perceived pattern.
Windows ME - Generally disliked, usually people complain about stability issues, a few complain about resource intensive.
Windows XP - This is tricky, longest lasting MS OS so there were many years to refine it. When XP first came out, most gamers (at least on TS, then 3dspotlight) stuck with 98se because XP was resource intensive and for years there was the nv4disp.dll blue screens that happened with nvidia cards.
Windows XP 64bit - I'll ignore the itanium build, but there are plenty of people that ran XP64 as a desktop OS. I don't think it was well liked due to poor driver support, were better off going with Vista 64 in many cases.
Windows Server 2003 - Really never ran as a consumer OS, however released at the same time as XP64 and is the same underlying kernel.
Windows Home Server - Only worth mentioning because it was a Windows release that is ignored - rightly so because it wasn't meant to be used as a desktop-consumer OS.
Windows Vista - Often chastised because of UAC and hardware requirements. UAC could be tamed and the hardware requirements weren't that high, people were just used to running an OS that originally came out in 2001. When ran on the same hardware as Windows 7, performance and experience was very similar it just took years for people to accept that, by that time 7 was out.
Windows Server 2008 - Well received, there were even pages dedicated to turning on and off certain services to get it to behave like a desktop OS. Lack of free utilities likely prevented a wider adoption (since it required server versions of a lot of software).
Windows 7 - Everyone likes.
Windows 8 - People dislike.
Windows 8.1 - Better, but still disliked vocally, people that use it seem to think its good.

So... In summary my count goes:
Good (pick your start point on 95)
Good (NT4)
Kind of bad (98)
Good (98se)
Good (2000)
Bad (WinME)
Good (XP, conveniently ignoring how it wasn't good until SP1 and really SP2)
Wash (XP64/Server 2003)
Wash (Win Home Server)
Bad (Vista)
Good (Server 2008)
Good (Win 7)
Bad (Win 8)
Bad (Win 8.1)

I wouldn't have even replied, but I see that good/bad flip flopping cited all the time and it is only true if you carefully pick and choose what releases you choose and ignore time frames. I also posted because this is a pretty quiet thread (rightly so since most of the Windows 9 discussion is happening on the frontpage, news comments). It wasn't a personal attack on you, nor do I expect people to quit repeating the good/bad cycle. Just pointing out that it really isn't true.

 

[mr.simonski]

Hey SNGX1275,
thank you for making this clear! It seems like you're an old hand when it comes to computer related question

I would totally agree with your long answer, but Windows 2000 had a lot of influence on me. I spent a lot of time with this OS on my personal desktop PC and there was this time period between Windows 98 and Windows XP when everyone in my surrounding was using Windows 2000 on their personal PCs - as there was no real alternative at this time.

 

[SNGX1275]

2000 was a fine OS (once you got past the incredibly long boot times), but gaming performance with it paled in comparison to 98se. It was really SP4 before it was on par with 98se and XP for gaming. Even then a lot of games wouldn't run on it. @Per Hansson wrote a few things here on getting games to work on 2000.

 

[bazz2004]

Microsoft and those of us on computer forums should be very worried at the lack of interest in this thread. Windows has failed to develop in line with expectations and still seems to be indifferent to non-business users. I have read that Windows is popular in developing countries but not in the rest of the world where the money is.

I have a relative who is keen to get online and considering buying a computer. As he is completely phobic about technology and cannot manage using a mobile phone or dab radio I’ve urged him not to buy a computer. I’ve suggested that he think about an iPad. My grand child is nearly 7 and good with gadgets so I bought a secondhand laptop, installed Windows 7 and looked for suitable educational software.

As the internet is a worry for parents a computer has the massive advantage of being usable offline. The range of educational software is not great and lots of titles from the past have compatibility problems with more recent versions of Windows. Even the superb puzzle game Pandora’s box produced by Microsoft for Windows 98 won’t run without work. Eventually, I learned of a patch which got it running in Windows 7 but finding it was a problem.

Microsoft discontinued Encarta in face of competition from Wikipedia but the Childrens’ version of Encarta was a great product. There is a kids’ Britannica but that’s about it for younger students. Microsoft are losing potential custom at both ends of the age range. At this rate schools will be dumping their laptops if that is not already happening.

Using a Windows computer is still a challenging experience. Those never ending updates which if fudged in any way mess up your OS are a barrier to the enjoyment of Windows. Update the OS and some of your favourite programs are sure to have a serious problem. The glacial adoption of SSD drives is a scandal and a seriously handicap for Microsoft. SSD prices are now at affordable levels and it’s hard to understand why computer manufacturers are not installing them as standard.

 

[SNGX1275]

Microsoft and those of us on computer forums should be very worried at the lack of interest in this thread.

As explained in the first reply, there is already a lot of discussion already happening on the Windows 9 news articles on the front page.

 

[cliffordcooley]

As explained in the first reply, there is already a lot of discussion already happening on the Windows 9 news articles on the front page.

Which is why I have not commented. @mailpup was the first to post, and did so in an attempt to redirect. This redirect was posted for a reason. Any and all discussion in this thread would only be a duplication of what has already been stated elsewhere.

 

[bazz2004]

All the discussion I've come across so far on Windows 9 seems to get excited about nothing. Who cares what they call it or whether the Charms bar is going to survive? Start Menu? Again if it isn't right third party software will enable users to customise the interface. Microsoft need to pull something significant out of the hat but I can't see it happening. They really have lost their way. Too many highly paid experts having little contact with the real world.

 

[SNGX1275]

Well, maybe the desktop environment is mature enough that there isn't much left to be improved upon? I know that statements like that are often <always?> proven wrong. But, let me ask you this, what do you think would be necessary to make you more productive on your desktop computer?

 

[bazz2004]

That's pretty easy. I'm retired so I've got time to spend on forums. I don't need to be more productive as I'm a home user. That's why tablets are looking so good.

 

[SNGX1275]

Then I don't know why you are complaining about Windows 9 "not developing in line with expectations.."

 

[bazz2004]

I don’t remember saying that. My gripe is that while Microsoft are moving in the right direction in some respects they have given up on areas where they should still be strong. Buying Nokia could well turn out to be a good move. There are, I suspect, a large number of non business people who are thinking about buying a mobile smart device/phone but aren’t ready to take the plunge yet. It’s this older segment of the age range in particular where there’s a lot of spending power.



Here’s one of the dilemmas as I see it. Younger people want devices to use for study and serious gaming. There are questions on the forum about which wonder device is best for producing essays plus coping with hours of processor intensive internet gaming. There’s no such hardware. Laptops are not modular or easy to maintain in the same way as desktops. However, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be so designed. It’s handy that computers can be used without an internet connection. Unfortunately Windows compatibility problems and lack of interest in producing new software is undermining Microsoft’s dominance. They won't or can't give support for some of their software which although outstanding doesn't run on XP or later.



The big question is whether Microsoft are capable of meeting the competition and retaining their core customers. So far it’s not looking good. Windows 9 should give us a good idea as to whether or not they are sliding towards a terminal decline. I really hope that Windows 9 surprises us all in a good way.

 

[SNGX1275]

I don’t remember saying that. ...

Here’s one of the dilemmas as I see it. Younger people want devices to use for study and serious gaming. There are questions on the forum about which wonder device is best for producing essays plus coping with hours of processor intensive internet gaming. There’s no such hardware. Laptops are not modular or easy to maintain in the same way as desktops. However, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be so designed. It’s handy that computers can be used without an internet connection. Unfortunately Windows compatibility problems and lack of interest in producing new software is undermining Microsoft’s dominance. They won't or can't give support for some of their software which although outstanding doesn't run on XP or later..

Microsoft and those of us on computer forums should be very worried at the lack of interest in this thread. Windows has failed to develop in line with expectations and still seems to be indifferent to non-business users. I have read that Windows is popular in developing countries but not in the rest of the world where the money is.

There absolutely is hardware for that, any machine for gaming is going to be more than capable of handling office type work.

Lack of interest in developing new software? Where did you come up with that?

 

[bazz2004]

The sensible device for lengthy high intensive gaming sessions is, for me at least, a gaming desktop or dedicated console and not a laptop. Surface 3 adverts assure customers that they need not buy a laptop and a tablet when they can have both. Hopefully Surface 4 will have more storage and a better OS. Microsoft are promoting apps rather than traditional software. Maybe I was unlucky but having tried some of the stuff in the Windows Store I was very underwhelmed.

 

[bluejolls]

Windows 9 will be 8.1 with small improvements. You could just patch Windows 8 with the changes but giving it a new name will usually wipe all negativity in peoples minds.

 

[bazz2004]

Microsoft have decided that Windows 10 will be the name of the next OS. Clever, because Windows 7 will sound so much more out of date and we've had no end of revamps to Windows 8.0.

 

[Bubbajim]

Windows 10 unveiled - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29431412

 

[bazz2004]

Beat you to it!

 

[Bubbajim]

Beat you to it!

Beat me with the name, I had the informative link