Microsoft: Next version of Windows will be completely different

A Microsoft project manager has posted and then removed a blog post regarding what he feels the next version of Windows will be like.

Entitled "What’s in store for the next Windows" the blog has now been removed but a Google cached version is still available. The Windows Club, who originally spotted the blog posting, speculate that the project manager is a member of the Windows Update team. The project manager doesn't reveal anything specific but states:

"The minimum that folks can take for granted is that the next version will be something completly different from what folks usually expect of Windows - I am simply impressed with the process that Steven has setup to listen to our customers needs and wants and get a team together than can make it happen. To actually bring together dozens and dozens of teams across Microsoft to come up with a vision for Windows.next is a process that is surreal! The themes that have been floated truly reflect what people have been looking for years and it will change the way people think about PCs and the way they use them. It is the future of PCs..."

The project manager reflects back at Windows 7's success in the market and argues that Microsoft's new approach to developing Windows has worked. "The plan is to use a similar approach for the next version of Windows and till things are finalized you're not going to get a "marketing" name from us" he states.

CIO interviewed Microsoft EMEA boss of consumer and online, John Mangelaars recently and quoted him as saying:

"[Apple is] doing well on the PC side but Windows 7 is a blockbuster. We got it really right. For me, Windows 8 will be mind-blowing."

Most company officials have been shy about talking Windows 8 or whatever the next version of Windows will be called. In January an ex-Microsoft employee predicted Windows 8 would be released in July 2011.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Quick overview: Google Buzz

Next Story

Microsoft: 300 Million people now use Windows Live Messenger

96 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The news first originated at the French site :
http://www.pcinpact.com/actu/news/55307-windows-8-billet-blog-nouvelle-interface-sinofsky-microsoft.htm

(not TheWindowsClub)

They really need to focus on several things:

- Making application handling easier. There is no reason why the end user has to see folders with DLLs and **** like that. The two separate program files folders for 32- and 64-bit is stupid. The next-next-next-finish install/uninstall routine is tedious and it sucks that you can't simply copy most apps to a new computer and have them rebuild their registry entries at runtime. In OSX you can at least generally move the settings pretty easily because they are in a place where you can actually find them, not arbitrarily scattered all over.

- The afore-mentioned also means the Start Menu needs a redesign. Do we seriously need shortcuts for safe modes, uninstallers and whatnot? Why not just have a single application icon with right click serving other options? Less clutter in the start menu so it could be turned into something other than the clumsy collection of folders it is now.

- Better uniformity. This will be a tough one because it also requires support from developers, developers, developers. Yes, the ones who don't read any of the UI design guidelines and churn out apps that look like **** and don't fit the Windows UI in any way or even work the same way other Windows apps do. Same goes for keyboard shortcuts. With OSX I love that I can always be sure that I can access for example preferences in the same menu, same keyboard shortcut.

- An updating system for applications so each software doesn't have their own thing leading to half a dozen helper applications running at logon.

- Better bundled applications. Notepad is long overdue a decent update, the file browser really could use a Quicklook type feature (no, the preview pane isn't even close), WMP should also try to reach more advanced users (who use MPC, VLC or some other 3rd party player instead because WMP lacks features), better user interface for the firewall, PDF support for the image viewer would be nice too, a better monitor calibration tool...

Yes, I know I'm asking many things that are in OSX and I really like that operating system. However, Windows isn't going away and I do like using it as well so I certainly wouldn't mind if they became closer together in the usability department.

Every version is completely different than the other it seems... Yet, there are no significance upgrades.

I can't believe people are defending Windows Registry. It by itself can cause many bsods, crashes, freezes - unless you clean it and there's no easy way to do it. Almost impossible to repair it too.
It makes you re-install every damn thing after you install Windows since it's centralized and was wiped with the last version. And you can't copy one application from one computer to another (useful for companies).

Just read about it yourself:
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/minimalit/windows-registry-design-17993
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-cranky66a.html
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000939.html
http://www.jamesballenger.com/2009/07/09/corrupted-windows-registry-causes-boot-failure/

Mac and Linux don't use a centralized registry which makes them run much smoother.

Tpiom said,
I can't believe people are defending Windows Registry. It by itself can cause many bsods, crashes, freezes - unless you clean it and there's no easy way to do it. Almost impossible to repair it too....

That is not the registries fault. That comes from developers not using it right.

Tpiom said,
And you can't copy one application from one computer to another (useful for companies).

If you are a developer for a company that needs this functionality, (and I know this thought is mind blowingly radical) you don't use the registry. If been done for a really long time. World of Warcraft is a recent example of having no ties to your registry. Counter Strike v1 has no ties to the registry other than the cd key. I've moved both programs between various computers with various hardware with no issues.

There is nothing wrong with the registry. Blame your software developer if you can't pirate your software easily, not the registry. Mac is getting ready to implement a registry style system to help with the growing amount of piracy happening. Linux you have to recompile every time to run software from a different computer so it's not like that is any less of a hassle. Get off the I hate Microsoft/Big Corps/Apple bandwagon and actually come up with a legit argument. Nothing you mentioned is forced unto you by the registry or Microsoft. The people who made whatever software your complaining about nothing being able to pirate easily are the ones that choose to use the registry to prevent it.

SputnikGamer said,

That is not the registries fault. That comes from developers not using it right.

If you are a developer for a company that needs this functionality, (and I know this thought is mind blowingly radical) you don't use the registry. If been done for a really long time. World of Warcraft is a recent example of having no ties to your registry. Counter Strike v1 has no ties to the registry other than the cd key. I've moved both programs between various computers with various hardware with no issues.

There is nothing wrong with the registry. Blame your software developer if you can't pirate your software easily, not the registry. Mac is getting ready to implement a registry style system to help with the growing amount of piracy happening. Linux you have to recompile every time to run software from a different computer so it's not like that is any less of a hassle. Get off the I hate Microsoft/Big Corps/Apple bandwagon and actually come up with a legit argument. Nothing you mentioned is forced unto you by the registry or Microsoft. The people who made whatever software your complaining about nothing being able to pirate easily are the ones that choose to use the registry to prevent it.

Quake 3 is another example i installed it once added patches, maps and bots copied to another drive on another pc and fired it up and works without a hiccup

“something completly different”, eh? Let's hope WinFS (or something like it) finally gets implemented. That really will be something completely different! I would love for WinFS to be the standard in Windows 8.

" it will change the way people think about PCs and the way they use them. It is the future of PCs..."

Isn't this used since Windows 3.xx? :)

Odom said,
" it will change the way people think about PCs and the way they use them. It is the future of PCs..."

Isn't this used since Windows 3.xx? :)

True. XP was supposed to be an all new eXPerience (hence the name), Vista was all about a clear new View or some nonsense (again hence the name). Every new version is hyped up about being the greatest thing ever, just pay no attention to the marketing. :)

Saburac said,

True. XP was supposed to be an all new eXPerience (hence the name), Vista was all about a clear new View or some nonsense (again hence the name). Every new version is hyped up about being the greatest thing ever, just pay no attention to the marketing. :)

Is that really where the XP name came from? I never heard that before... Interesting.

Windows next version will not be released in July 2011. MS uses a really long beta cycle to work out many issues. The beta would be in private right now, and the semi private beta would be opening and taking applications with the public beta coming over the summer.

I see another year or 2 before we actually see a working model of the next windows. It may go into beta in 2011 (late in the year) or the first part of 2012 with a 2013 release date.

Those are my predictions.

I just hope it isn't one of these big changes for changes sake. My ideal change would be the implementation of a more detailed Windows operating system for the experts that is hidden within a simple UI that fits the needs of a new user. If your not going to cater for both the average user and the experienced then whats the point in changing? I don't want a computer that can flash and produce amazing effects when opening a photo but does not have the option to structure a file database in a way that suits my needs.

I know alot sources and they are saying windows 8 will be just that mind blowing.. AS for the comment about vista and its depth under the hood so true my friend . A lot of work and programming went into re-writing code etc.. thus is why drivers could not adapt which flagged vista's sales.. Vista is fine now but windows 7 which is written with the code of vista has allowed similar and more features with touch screen etc.. everything will be touch & voice soon and id scanning is another to ensure safety. So many movies come true and alot more good things in store Microsoft problem is they don't believe in taking the risk to make it happen its a huge gamble with a lot to take but look at the Ipod that was a gamble too that well alot people have if not have more then one :)

Uhh no... Speech Recognition is a no-no. It failed during the demo Microsoft did on it. Epic Fail...

Now what is in store in 10 years? A screen as thin as about 0.65mm. Capable of 3D without glasses. Featuring high-resolution cameras in the screen. Using 16GB DDR3 RAM and an Intel Core i7-960. With a speaker laid on top of the glass of the screen for treble, and a small subwoofer built-in on the bottom of multi-touch keyboard. Basically, it would be a very powerful computer that could bring the windows to you, so you don't have to reach your hands out too far, and you would just move the windows in mid-air as the cameras would see your hands moving. The GPU would on-the-fly process a simulation of what the human eyes would be seeing and then it lays your hands on that simulation to detect what 3D object you touched, which years from now, it would be doing this super-fast. :P

Electric Jolt said,
Uhh no... Speech Recognition is a no-no. It failed during the demo Microsoft did on it. Epic Fail...

Wow, one public mess-up doesn't indicate that's it completely worthless. There's been many other videos showing how Vista's speech recognition WORKS fairly well.

I can laugh how people have no idea what registry is.
But I'm sad that natural selection probably won't take care of them.

RealFduch said,
I can laugh how people have no idea what registry is.
But I'm sad that natural selection probably won't take care of them.

LMAO

Add a working "Project Natal" from XBOX 360 to the future version of Windows that would recognize facial expressions and head orientation toward Screen 1 or 2 or 3 to pop up the next dialog where your eyes are at that very moment plus other neat stuff and you have a Windows completely different than what you expected from it until now.

Marc Veilleux said,
Add a working "Project Natal" from XBOX 360 to the future version of Windows that would recognize facial expressions and head orientation toward Screen 1 or 2 or 3 to pop up the next dialog where your eyes are at that very moment plus other neat stuff and you have a Windows completely different than what you expected from it until now.
They might do something like that for Windows 9 but not for 8....It's too close to the release of Natal on the 360, they wouldn't want to steal the thunder away from the 360 (why buy a 360 with Natal when you can do the same on your PC?)

Rudy said,
They might do something like that for Windows 9 but not for 8....It's too close to the release of Natal on the 360, they wouldn't want to steal the thunder away from the 360 (why buy a 360 with Natal when you can do the same on your PC?)

They've already said that they want to promote it cross platform for 360 AND PC. This would be the best way by far to do it. It wouldn't be stealing thunder. It would be a massive benefit if anything.

Sounds exciting.

I wish for better applications like Apple has with iLife.

I know Microsoft has thing called "Windows Live Essentials" but I want this package to really be amped up.

humanz. said,
Sounds exciting.

I wish for better applications like Apple has with iLife.

I know Microsoft has thing called "Windows Live Essentials" but I want this package to really be amped up.

Can't. They'd get sued. They've tried.

humanz. said,
Sounds exciting.

I wish for better applications like Apple has with iLife.

I know Microsoft has thing called "Windows Live Essentials" but I want this package to really be amped up.

I have to agree that Microsoft needs to take the time while they can and shove the feature sets of the Live Essential products as far as they can.

When these products were in the OS, Microsoft was kept 'legally' from doing much with them. Even now there will be push back on any features of Live essentials that steps on other people because it is easily offered and installed from inside the OS; however, they may be able to finally go further with the products than they currently are doing.

The counter argument is that a lot of software companies and developers make a living out of selling the enhanced video editing and garage band type of applications and from a 'platform' or a developer support perscpective Microsoft would be hurting these companies.

Apple didn't care about the products they were putting out of business, and it has created quite a divide for a lot of companies that feel like Apple ripped them off or cheated them in the OS X market.

So there is always a line for Microsoft, even if there isn't a 'legal' constraint.

AgentGray said,

Can't. They'd get sued. They've tried.

How the hell could they get sued; all humanz is asking for is Microsoft to dedicate some resources to making Live Essentials in more feature parity with iLfe - the fact that they don't bundle these with Windows tells me that your 'they'll get sued' is a clueless gest on a topic you know little about.

rawr_boy81 said,
How the hell could they get sued; all humanz is asking for is Microsoft to dedicate some resources to making Live Essentials in more feature parity with iLfe - the fact that they don't bundle these with Windows tells me that your 'they'll get sued' is a clueless gest on a topic you know little about.
It's a simple misunderstanding. When the stuff was bundled, MS would indeed have had problems. Now that it's not, yeah - they can start going all out with them.

Kirkburn said,
It's a simple misunderstanding. When the stuff was bundled, MS would indeed have had problems. Now that it's not, yeah - they can start going all out with them.

I actually forgot about how they bundled and seperated it from the OS. They should now be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't physically put it in the OS. They can put a link on the first time startup page so that when people start up IE for the first time, it gives them the option of downloading it. That should be legal. They're not forcing people to install it, they're giving the option.

Steve Sinofsky has revolutionised the whole windows development team, personally i would have him as CEO as he has proven his worth over and over again, Office and now windows.

I would like to see Microsoft push the boundries a bit more with Windows and not get stuck in a ruck, hopefully windows 7 proved to them that people are receptive to change and new ideas, that they can push the windows platform into new directions.

It's 2010 we have quad core, soon to be joined by 6 core and 8 core machines with tons of ram and hdd, we consume more media than was ever imagined a few years ago. I hope that Microsoft can continue to take advantage of this and push pc's as a whole forward.

Sulphy said,
full on voice commands would be kewl.... johnny mnemonic????

Yes, a full NUI would be great! A combination of voice, gestuer, and improved multi touch would definitely be a big deal. They have hyped it up for years and haven't delivered, so this would be a good idea. :)

MrFuji said,
And soon they say it'll ship with the MinWin kernel... oh wait, we already got that.

Press Shift+F10 when Windows 7 is being installed and see that it is/has MinWin.

You know, I hate it when I hear comments like that. Vista wasn't revolutionary but it was a HUGE step from XP. IMO Vista was an incredibly awesome product, and lived up to it's name. The fact that it wasn't what people expected doesn't mean anything. There was MASSIVE amounts of work, improvements and the like. You don't realize the effort that was put behind the product and I think only the insiders at Microsoft saw what we couldn't and were amazed by the work put into it. Don't take Vista for granted, it really was as big as they said you just can't see it.

You don't know what I can or can't see or what my opinion on vista is.

They didnt work as hard on delivering on their promises as they did on hyping vista for what was not. And it WAS a terrible release, back in the day.

Tekkerson said,
You know, I hate it when I hear comments like that. Vista wasn't revolutionary but it was a HUGE step from XP. IMO Vista was an incredibly awesome product, and lived up to it's name. The fact that it wasn't what people expected doesn't mean anything. There was MASSIVE amounts of work, improvements and the like. You don't realize the effort that was put behind the product and I think only the insiders at Microsoft saw what we couldn't and were amazed by the work put into it. Don't take Vista for granted, it really was as big as they said you just can't see it.

Most people can't see it and those are the end users. What's the point if end users, their main customers, don't know & cannot use its capabilities and cannot deal with its little annoyances? The user experience of Vista wasn't anywhere close to Windows 7's. Vista failed was because Microsoft provided a bad user experience overall. Vista was a failure and Microsoft knows it too.

I think it was a good thing that Vista failed and because of that they now have Windows 7.

Edited by Jebadiah, Feb 10 2010, 4:28pm :

You guys really don't get it, I'm not talking about the user experience per say, I'm talking overall. I know I can't blame you all for not knowing what happens behind the scenes, but what's under the hood in vista is a huge improvement from XP. I don't expect you to agree with me, but if you were a developer you would appreciate Vista some more and not take it for granted and you would have a little more respect towards it.

Jebadiah said,

Most people can't see it and those are the end users. What's the point if end users, their main customers, don't know & cannot use its capabilities and cannot deal with its little annoyances? The user experience of Vista wasn't anywhere close to Windows 7's. Vista failed was because Microsoft provided a bad user experience overall. Vista was a failure and Microsoft knows it too.

I think it was a good thing that Vista failed and because of that they now have Windows 7.

400 million copies of Vista running at it's peak. Mac and Linux will never have a failure, that is so great.

Jebadiah said,

Most people can't see it and those are the end users. What's the point if end users, their main customers, don't know & cannot use its capabilities and cannot deal with its little annoyances? The user experience of Vista wasn't anywhere close to Windows 7's. Vista failed was because Microsoft provided a bad user experience overall. Vista was a failure and Microsoft knows it too.

I think it was a good thing that Vista failed and because of that they now have Windows 7.

In my personal opinion, people should just put Vista behind them. It did what it was supposed to do for my needs and the needs of many others. However, there were problems for many people as well. It was very hit and miss I think. It depended on the hardware that was used and the situation, but Vista was a rushed product. It definitely should have had more testing time, etc... If they had released it in July of the next year, we may have had something much different from it. Anyway, we can argue all of the should have, could have, would haves all day and it won't change the past. We have Windows 7 now and things are getting far better. That is all that matters! :)

warwagon said,
You mean they finally got rid of the registry?
+1 That would be nice....but I'm sure BrandonLive will come defend the registry lol :P

warwagon said,
You mean they finally got rid of the registry?

the registry is fine. its just software makers go too crazy in it

warwagon said,
You mean they finally got rid of the registry?

There really is no reason to. It is a good idea in principle. I think thinks would be quite a more complicated without it.

warwagon said,
You mean they finally got rid of the registry?

+1

The registry is NOT a good idea in principle, in theory, or in practice. Engineering 101, don't have a single point of failure.

kenboldt said,

+1

The registry is NOT a good idea in principle, in theory, or in practice. Engineering 101, don't have a single point of failure.


For me the registry has never failed so it has been good in principle, in theory, and in practice! And as has already been said there is no good reason to get rid of the registry and I do not see it going anywhere. As far as Vista it was a great OS with the only fault really was hardware manufactures dropping the ball on getting good drivers out in a timely order.

They won't get rid of the registry as it would screw up too much. What they could do is keep the registry solely for the OS and redirect the current APIs to different functions that would read/write a private registry in the same folder the app is installed in. It would help mitigate some of the issues with registry bloat and allow a clean removal of installed apps.

iamwhoiam said,
They won't get rid of the registry as it would screw up too much. What they could do is keep the registry solely for the OS and redirect the current APIs to different functions that would read/write a private registry in the same folder the app is installed in. It would help mitigate some of the issues with registry bloat and allow a clean removal of installed apps.
That wouldn't work on a user-aware OS. They'd need the user-specific setting files in the user profile. They can't keep that stuff in app folders.

Mike Chipshop said,
There is simply nothing wrong with the registry!

Then why is it with a Mac if you want to move an application you can just copy and paste the folder?

warwagon said,

Then why is it with a Mac if you want to move an application you can just copy and paste the folder?

While the way OSX does it is WAY WAY WAY better, it's still has some flaws. Applications write stuff outside of their own sandbox (something the iPhoneOS does way better). That stuff doesn't get cleaned up when you remove the app (something like AppZapper can help you out but you shouldn't need it)

warwagon said,
You mean they finally got rid of the registry?

Wow, people still hate the registry, do they even know why when they make silly statements like this?

The registry is nothing but a 'central' database that doesn't even have to be used by developers, as they can shove their settings in public or private user folders instead of using the registry, but is is discouraged because of the mess scattered configuration and settings files make.

Windows started out without a registry, and people had .ini and .cfg files all over the place, just like users of Linux and OS X now have to deal with. It wasn't a 'smart' model for scattered and inconsistent settings then and it is even worse now.

I find it funny for OS X people to jump in and go, "We can just install by dragging a folder." What they don't realize is that they STILL have to 'configure' their preferences for the software. The only difference is Windows' installer does this 'setup' when copying the files and has nothing to do with whether there is a registry or not.

Also of note for OS X users, Apple has been working towards a REGISTRY type of concept for OS X as well, so they can 'further' centralize the settings database for their modded *nix application model. Look it up...

Registry and registry type concepts are good, especially when you remove the flaws that were present in previous versions of Windows where the registry on Win9X was sitting on a FAT FS and could be easily corrupted and the HD writes could not be fully monitored to keep it from corrupting data. Just forcing users to NTFS where the OS and FS ensure that the registry cannot be harmed removes this risk and the 'problems' of the centralized registry becoming corrupted as was possible in the Win9X.

So there 'used to' be a reason to not like the registry, but that so was over 10 years ago, yet here we are seeing people complain about it.

Edited by thenetavenger, Feb 10 2010, 6:36pm :

Also, "single point of failure" these people just trot out catch phrases without any deep understanding of the issue, and it's immediately apparent to everyone who has a clue.
A disk file system is also a "single point of failure", one corrupt bit in the file system can render the system in-operable. Sure you can use forensic tools to recover your data, but you can do the same with the registry. Bottom line, for 99% of end users it causes the same result (denied access, and a reinstall of everything.) Unfortunately this is a hellish game of whack-a-mole, the educated people shoot down one registry/windows myth and another pops up, ad nauseum. Why don't you people learn about a topic instead of trying to spread your ignorance?

Northgrove said,
That wouldn't work on a user-aware OS. They'd need the user-specific setting files in the user profile. They can't keep that stuff in app folders.

Ahem. Some of you need to read up on how the registry works on windows vista forward. There are many registry files. Some are stored in the same locations as they were in the old, pre-2k era. With Vista forward, there are registry hives that are stored in users directories which are loaded only when needed, for that individual user.

Did anyone wonder why applications started prompting for "Install for All Users" or "Install for Me Only"
?

+warwagon said,

Then why is it with a Mac if you want to move an application you can just copy and paste the folder?

Any app that I write has startup code to repair my application specific registry settings if they are not there or are somehow corrupted. I can copy and paste my folders around and have the app still run. You can't blame the registry because developers take a lazy approach to using it.

warwagon said,

Then why is it with a Mac if you want to move an application you can just copy and paste the folder?

for some applications, but when they dont, who knows where the apps are installed!

warwagon said,

Then why is it with a Mac if you want to move an application you can just copy and paste the folder?


Why would I want to do that anyway though?

Owenw said,

Why would I want to do that anyway though?

1) I just remember a story from a few years back where a kid went into a retail store and plugged his ipod into a Mac, and dragged and dropped the office folder from the computer onto his Mac and then left.

2) It would be nice to be able to "Backup your application, as in the folder its installed, so when you reinstall windows you could just restore (for example) the program files directory and have all of your applications already installed.

Edited by warwagon, Feb 10 2010, 10:14pm :

Northgrove said,
That wouldn't work on a user-aware OS. They'd need the user-specific setting files in the user profile. They can't keep that stuff in app folders.

How about reading peoples posts it is pretty clear that the application specific registry settings have their own registry in their own programme directory, the user specific registry goes in the user directory as it is and there is an operating system specific registry that is only use by the operating system - how about reading and thinking about the post before firing off a reply, the reasons were pretty obvious.

warwagon said,
You mean they finally got rid of the registry?

And how would that not break all sorts of applications... Like it or not, Applications rely on the Registry... It's not as simple as just tearing it out because you don't like how it looks or something... It does the job fine as well... I have not yet seen any compelling reason to replace the registry.

warwagon said,
1) I just remember a story from a few years back where a kid went into a retail store and plugged his ipod into a Mac, and dragged and dropped the office folder from the computer onto his Mac and then left.

Wow, did that really happen? LOL

warwagon said,
You mean they finally got rid of the registry?

What would getting rid of the registry do? Make all software prior to this change 100% useless at best? Maybe we are the only ones, but my friends and I have World of Warcraft installed on my external hard drive that we take to our classes in college and play without running any set up files on any computer. If Blizzard can make games that run without using the registry to set up its software, then I don't see why other software companies can't do the same. The registry doesn't hurt or benefit you as an end user so don't complain about it. The only possible complaint you could have about it is that it prevents you from pirating software the easy way. You have to do more than just copy and paste the program like on a Mac. As a software developer, you can choose to use it or not use it so if you have an issue with it, don't use it.

J_R_G said,
Also, "single point of failure" these people just trot out catch phrases without any deep understanding of the issue, and it's immediately apparent to everyone who has a clue.
A disk file system is also a "single point of failure", one corrupt bit in the file system can render the system in-operable. Sure you can use forensic tools to recover your data, but you can do the same with the registry. Bottom line, for 99% of end users it causes the same result (denied access, and a reinstall of everything.) Unfortunately this is a hellish game of whack-a-mole, the educated people shoot down one registry/windows myth and another pops up, ad nauseum. Why don't you people learn about a topic instead of trying to spread your ignorance?

and quite right too i haven't had a reg go bung since i moved from 98se to winxp although i do wish MS would force all entries for an app to be placed in one reg key instead of bazillion other places althroughout the registry take nero burning rom for an example bloody entries left right and center and uninstalling leaves crap all through the reg where as if it was 1 app you get 1 reg key and settings and other program configs are all stored in 1 place a single reg key

8 could break things like Vista; people will stick to 7 like they now stick to XP (except it won't be 10 years) then Windows 9 will be refinement of 8 ("what 8/Vista should have been") and people will get over their hangups and flock to it making the fastest selling Windows of all time.

All in cycles my friends

burnblue said,
8 could break things like Vista; people will stick to 7 like they now stick to XP (except it won't be 10 years) then Windows 9 will be refinement of 8 ("what 8/Vista should have been") and people will get over their hangups and flock to it making the fastest selling Windows of all time.

All in cycles my friends

Well, in fairness, Vista broke things because of some developers using very poor development techniques... That's why Windows 7 is 6.1... Some applications in Vista were failing to run because they were looking for 5.x...

Good stuff, if it's different enough it might bring me back from OSX....doubtful but I'm 100% open to it

Rudy said,
Good stuff, if it's different enough it might bring me back from OSX....doubtful but I'm 100% open to it
Nooooo Rudy! Don't abandon us! :(

.woot! said,

Vista (Longhorn) was something completely different though...
The project was a big failure, the promises were so great and they weren't able to even come close to them

.woot! said,

Vista (Longhorn) was something completely different though...
Not really. Completely different in my eyes means doing away with the old taskbar, system tray, start menu, control panel formula that's been in existance since Windows 95.

still1 said,

vista and 7 was different from their previous version..

They're not that different. The quote was, "The minimum that folks can take for granted is that the next version will be something completly different from what folks usually expect of Windows - ".

It will not be something completely different. Windows has remain pretty much the same since Windows 95 and I really don't expect or think that'll change radically any time soon.

Edited by iamwhoiam, Feb 10 2010, 4:26pm :

iamwhoiam said,

It will not be something completely different. Windows has remain pretty much the same since Windows 95 and I really don't expect or think that'll change radically any time soon.

It's changed a hell of a lot. But yeah, I don't see the need to fix something that's not really broken. 7's taskbar is really great and I can't imagine them throwing it away just to have "something new".

PureLegend said,

It's changed a hell of a lot. But yeah, I don't see the need to fix something that's not really broken. 7's taskbar is really great and I can't imagine them throwing it away just to have "something new".

Exactly why should we need / want something "new" all the time, radical changes that are unnecessary is just a waste of time. The reason that the core experience of Windows remains the same is because it "just works"!

Many of the new features contribute to big shifts in how we do things (I find myself just using start search now to run any program I don't have on the taskbar. That is not even slightly the same to Windows 10 years ago, apart from you click a button in the lower left before you find a program. This along with everything else has slowly been tweaking more and more. Obviously more advanced users notice more changes, as 99% of people only use a small portion of Windows.

Rudy said,
The project was a big failure, the promises were so great and they weren't able to even come close to them

Um. Failure according to who? It still got onto millions of PC's, and it broke ground in terms of moving away from the old NT infrastructure and driver platform to a new one. The only reason it "failed" is cause of the lack of driver support.

.woot! said,

Vista (Longhorn) was something completely different though...
Yes but much of the issue was changes made in the background and the swapping of much of the code mid way into development. I get the feeling that this post was relating to the UI a bit more by the way he mentions themes and the way it will change things for end users. If so, that's a different ball game to shat Vista was.


I'll use Vista any day over XP for what its worth too with the possible exception of on a netbook.

Edited by Smigit, Feb 10 2010, 10:10pm :

Rudy said,
The project was a big failure, the promises were so great and they weren't able to even come close to them

And I think Microsoft learned from that experience...

Owenw said,

Um. Failure according to who? It still got onto millions of PC's, and it broke ground in terms of moving away from the old NT infrastructure and driver platform to a new one. The only reason it "failed" is cause of the lack of driver support.

Yeah...uh...try reading into the history of what eventually became Vista and see just how many things didn't make it. The most obvious one is probably a new, all-conquering, super-awesome file system which...well, we still don't have it, so you can probably guess what happened to that - and the list is pretty long.