What do you expect (not hope) to see in Windows 9?

[Windows Nashville]

There have been a lot of comments about Windows 9 "fixing" all the problems in Windows 8, much as 7 "fixed" Vista. I'd like to see this happen too, but I think it's more likely that Microsoft will double down on the Metro/touch aspects of the OS and further deprecate the classic desktop experience.

What do you expect that Windows 9 will be like?

[Rigby]

I've lost faith in them at this point and they clearly won't undo the terrible changes they've made so I don't think it will matter, Windows 7 will be my last Microsoft OS. Windows 9 will probably be even more Metro and app store based with more if not all of the traditional desktop stripped out.

[firey]

I've lost faith in them at this point and they clearly won't undo the terrible changes they've made so I don't think it will matter, Windows 7 will be my last Microsoft OS. Windows 9 will probably be even more Metro and app store based with more if not all of the traditional desktop stripped out.

I don't know about unable to undo them, however I am with you. I will ride 7 out as long as I can then once it becomes too oudated to function.. I will look at alternatives.

[siah1214]

I expect and hope more and more metro :)

[Hum]

a Start Menu :p

[Snake89]

I say Microsoft will get rid of the Metro UI for desktops.

[derkim]

What I expect and what I want to see are different things.

I think Microsoft will improve the Metro concept and will remove more and more the classic desktop UI.

I believe we will no more see a explorer.exe like we are know today.

But I want to see nothing of metro.

[Josh the Nerd]

Metro is in a baby stage in Windows 8. I think of it as comparable to DOS or Windows 1.0 in terms of maturity. The most obvious next step is to allow WinRT apps to switch from full-screen mode to windowed mode. I imagine a Windows 9 where Metro and "desktop" apps are treated as equals. Apps run in full-screen or maximized mode by default, and the "desktop" is accessed by switching an app to windowed mode, instead of having a Desktop app.

As for the idea that the desktop and Win32 compatibility would be done away with as soon as Windows 9, Microsoft's history indicates otherwise. 16-bit applications were still fully supported until XP x64, 10 years after Windows 95, and they're still supported in the 32-bit version of Windows 8 17 years later.

[Noir Angel]

My fear is that they will try to pollute every part of the UI with Metro.

[Dot Matrix]

More transition to a dynamic UI. Sorry, guys, but touch isn't magically going to disappear.

[Noir Angel]

Never said it was, but having touch doesn't necessitate the designing of butt ugly, flat, and featureless user interfaces.

[firey]

More transition to a dynamic UI. Sorry, guys, but touch isn't magically going to disappear.

and touch isn't going to magically take over the desktop area either.

[Colin McGregor]

Blah Blah Blah "Windows 8 sucks", "Metro Sucks", "I'm gonna find alternatives", blah blah blah. Same old crap day in day out. Neowin gives you all blogs for a reason.

[Vice]

I think there are really only two outcomes for Windows 9.

1. Metro is vastly scaled back and the OS returns to form with a Windows 7 appearance top to bottom.

2. They increase Metro's influence and begin removing the apps that ship currently as part of the desktop. I'm talking, Notepad, Calculator, File Explorer, Internet Explorer and so on all being Metro only apps.

I don't know which one of these two plans they will execute yet it's still early days and it depends heavily upon how well Windows 8 does in the market. I don't expect it to be well received and I think PC manufacturers will see a sales slump directly related to Windows 8 being shipped on their systems and they will be quick to change back to offering Windows 7 on their systems similar to how they offered Windows XP "downgrades" to people that bought systems with Vista pre-installed. If that happens and it becomes a big enough problem then I believe they will go with plan 1.

It is pretty clear that after more than a year windows Phones are not selling. There are a lot of reasons for that. Lack of Apps, Lack of device diversity, lack of carrier support. But regardless of why, the result is the same. They aren't selling that well and they are hovering just over 1% of the smart phone market and if Windows 8 is as "successful" as Windows Phone has been then god help Microsoft as they just wasted the past 2-3 years and billions of dollars.

[Noir Angel]

I think there are really only two outcomes for Windows 9.

1. Metro is vastly scaled back and the OS returns to form with a Windows 7 appearance top to bottom.

2. They increase Metro's influence and begin removing the apps that ship currently as part of the desktop. I'm talking, Notepad, Calculator, File Explorer, Internet Explorer and so on all being Metro only apps.

I don't know which one of these two plans they will execute yet it's still early days and it depends heavily upon how well Windows 8 does in the market. I don't expect it to be well received and I think PC manufacturers will see a sales slump directly related to Windows 8 being shipped on their systems and they will be quick to change back to offering Windows 7 on their systems similar to how they offered Windows XP "downgrades" to people that bought systems with Vista pre-installed. If that happens and it becomes a big enough problem then I believe they will go with plan 1.

It is pretty clear that after more than a year windows Phones are not selling. There are a lot of reasons for that. Lack of Apps, Lack of device diversity, lack of carrier support. But regardless of why, the result is the same. They aren't selling that well and they are hovering just over 1% of the smart phone market and if Windows 8 is as "successful" as Windows Phone has been then god help Microsoft as they just wasted the past 2-3 years and billions of dollars.

Given how dedicated Microsoft seem to be to ignoring the feedback of a lot of their users, I have my worries about Windows 9 going down the "More Metro" route personally.

[trek]

GPO to disable all touch UI elements from enterprise deployments.

[Dot Matrix]

I think there are really only two outcomes for Windows 9.

1. Metro is vastly scaled back and the OS returns to form with a Windows 7 appearance top to bottom.

2. They increase Metro's influence and begin removing the apps that ship currently as part of the desktop. I'm talking, Notepad, Calculator, File Explorer, Internet Explorer and so on all being Metro only apps.

I don't know which one of these two plans they will execute yet it's still early days and it depends heavily upon how well Windows 8 does in the market. I don't expect it to be well received and I think PC manufacturers will see a sales slump directly related to Windows 8 being shipped on their systems and they will be quick to change back to offering Windows 7 on their systems similar to how they offered Windows XP "downgrades" to people that bought systems with Vista pre-installed. If that happens and it becomes a big enough problem then I believe they will go with plan 1.

It is pretty clear that after more than a year windows Phones are not selling. There are a lot of reasons for that. Lack of Apps, Lack of device diversity, lack of carrier support. But regardless of why, the result is the same. They aren't selling that well and they are hovering just over 1% of the smart phone market and if Windows 8 is as "successful" as Windows Phone has been then god help Microsoft as they just wasted the past 2-3 years and billions of dollars.

Number 1 isn't going to happen. You don't introduce a new paradigm and then revert backwards.

[Vice]

Number 1 isn't going to happen. You don't make changes and then revert backwards. Windows 9 is either going to continue with the evolution of Metro, by finishing the changes introduced in Windows 8, or introduce new changes based off feedback from Windows 8. One way or the other, the Start Menu is dead. More than likely, Windows 9 is going to be a completely dynamic OS.

I know that you're wishing for that pretty hard but I just can't see that situation happening. People said Apple wouldn't use Intel processors. Then they did. People said Apple wouldn't allow Windows to boot natively on their Intel Macs, and then they did. People said Microsoft wouldn't make a PC because they are a software company, now we have the Microsoft Surface.

Situations change, sometimes companies backpedal or reevaluate a situation based on the market. The fact is, if Windows 8 doesn't sell they aren't just going to release Windows 8 v2 and hope that does better. They'll backpedal to what sells. Microsoft is after all a business out to make money, products that don't sell get killed.

There is also something else to consider. What happens if Microsofts Surface is the only good Windows 8 tablet? What if all the other oems stick with Android for their tablets (Samsung, Asus etc) and decide they don't want to be in the Microsoft business and would prefer 100% of the revenue going to themselves?

That seems to be what is happening with phones and I don't see why Tablets would be any different because it's not like it was in the late 80's and early 90's - We have a good OS for Phones and Tablets, hardware makers don't need Microsoft like they used to. They can just use Android and keep all the profit.

[Dashel]

What is a completely dynamic OS again?

[Dot Matrix]

I know that you're wishing for that pretty hard but I just can't see that situation happening. People said Apple wouldn't use Intel processors. Then they did. People said Apple wouldn't allow Windows to boot natively on their Intel Macs, and then they did. People said Microsoft wouldn't make a PC because they are a software company, now we have the Microsoft Surface.

Situations change, sometimes companies backpedal or reevaluate a situation based on the market. The fact is, if Windows 8 doesn't sell they aren't just going to release Windows 8 v2 and hope that does better. They'll backpedal to what sells. Microsoft is after all a business out to make money, products that don't sell get killed.

But Microsoft has never backpedaled in cases like this before, so why would they now? Case and point: Windows 7 is an evolution of Windows Vista. Not a "backpedal" to Windows XP.

[Ci7]

I know that you're wishing for that pretty hard but I just can't see that situation happening. People said Apple wouldn't use Intel processors. Then they did. People said Apple wouldn't allow Windows to boot natively on their Intel Macs, and then they did. People said Microsoft wouldn't make a PC because they are a software company, now we have the Microsoft Surface.

Situations change, sometimes companies backpedal or reevaluate a situation based on the market. The fact is, if Windows 8 doesn't sell they aren't just going to release Windows 8 v2 and hope that does better. They'll backpedal to what sells. Microsoft is after all a business out to make money, products that don't sell get killed.

There is also something else to consider. What happens if Microsofts Surface is the only good Windows 8 tablet? What if all the other oems stick with Android for their tablets (Samsung, Asus etc) and decide they don't want to be in the Microsoft business and would prefer 100% of the revenue going to themselves?

That seems to be what is happening with phones and I don't see why Tablets would be any different because it's not like it was in the late 80's and early 90's - We have a good OS for Phones and Tablets, hardware makers don't need Microsoft like they used to. They can just use Android and keep all the profit.

i see them backpadal after vista :rolleyes:

they justed moved away more with Windows 7

case in point Superbar/revamped system-tray ....etc

[Dot Matrix]

What is a completely dynamic OS again?

An OS that works itself to fit the user. ex: live tiles on the Start Screen. Even the Start Screen itself can be seen as dynamic, I can customize it to fit my needs better than the old Start Menu.

The 9x paradigm is a static design. The desktop icons are static, and the Start Menu is relatively static. Sure there are desktop RSS feeds, and gadgets, but your average users little uses those.

[Noir Angel]

An OS that works itself to fit the user gives the user choice. Where is the needs fit for those of us that work better without the start screen?

[Ci7]

actually MS is listening to feedback

recent leak

no hack needed for those of you

via winsupersite

edit

:wacko: :s oh i screwed up

stardock @ work

Edited July 24, 2012 by Ci7

[Vice]

i see them backpadal after vista :rolleyes:

they justed moved away more with Windows 7

case in point Superbar/revamped system-tray ....etc

Vista itself didn't need to be backpedaled from. It has some great features. It did look very familiar to Windows XP. It had the start menu and such. The main backlash from consumers was that it didn't run their software or hardware. That took time to mature.

There was never a problem with Vista itself only the ecosystem that had been built up around Windows XP for what, 6-7 years? Software and Hardware makers had become too engrained in XP and that is what made Vista falter.

Also the fact that it didn't run well on all systems due to the Intel IGP debacle etc

Anyway I can give a good example of failed Microsofts products. Zune, Microsoft Bob etc - Not everything they've done has been a home run and when things aren't liked by Consumers they get axed.

A lot of you may not know about Microsoft Bob but it was back in the 90's when Microsoft tried to humanize the Windows desktop environment and make it "simple" basically they dumbed it down like they are doing with Metro and it failed miserably. They never attempted something like that again. Until now. But this time it's because they want to go after the iPad so they've blown up a phone UI like Apple did and are hoping that'll be successful. The difference is, Apple didn't take their desktop OS and make it run iOS apps, they don't need to leverage their desktop monopoly to be successful like Microsoft are doing.