New Windows Blue screenshots show IE11, public Milestone Preview a possibility

Previously we've seen evidence of the next version of Windows (codenamed Windows Blue) floating around in the form of screenshots of both build 9319 and build 9289, including reports that the update will bump the kernel to version 6.3. Now some new screenshots from build 9319 have appeared, and while they don't show much, they do reveal a few more tidbits about what we can expect.

Internet Explorer 11 has been seen in the shot below, clearly stating "IE11" through the developer console which allows you to choose a compatibility mode for the browser. Visually there doesn't appear to be any changes at this stage, but it's a small bit of evidence that suggests IE11 will come alongside Blue.

Also revealed, thanks to the guys at Win8China, is that Windows Blue appears to be more of a Service Pack 1 to Windows 8 than a full-blown Windows 9. This conforms closer to previous reports that indicated Windows Blue will be a significant update to Windows 8, as opposed to a whole new operating system that would go under the name of Windows 9 or similar.

Win8China also reports that there is no Milestone 2 (M2) coming for Windows Blue (Milestone 1 has reportedly already occurred), with Microsoft instead looking towards a Windows Blue Milestone Preview that will apparently be available for public download and testing. This is obviously an unconfirmed rumor at this stage, but with a Blue launch of sometime later this year, any Milestone Preview would have to be released relatively soon.

Source: Win8China (1) | (2)

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

A video hands-on with the HTC One

Next Story

Surface Pro availability update, plus download music from TV ad

61 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Would desperatley wait for the release.Hope this serves as a real patch to loopholes in win 8

Edited by Tuhin12, Feb 24 2013, 2:34am :

You do not release GUI changes in a minor service pack or update not a single visible change will be shown until windows 9 a year or more from now.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft said future updates would be like Mac just service packs blue is nothing more then Mac OS releasing mountain lion . You will not see anything diff until windows 9

This will be more like the Win95 OSR's (OEM Service Release) -- or phone updates (mango size). Service Packs historically just included all the security and hot fixes plus some minor functionality.. for example the WiFi-applet in XP.

Hoping for big and cool changes for my surface rt, lumia 920 (and soon to be owned surface pro).

How about: "I don't want to run 2560x1440x SIXTEEN ****ING COLORS". The start screen is just effing hideous. Big ass tiles, and a whole 16 colors to choose from. WTF. Some of us don't want our OSs to look so effing cheesy. (our phones as well). Metro is effing ugly.

runningnak3d said,
How about: "I don't want to run 2560x1440x SIXTEEN ****ING COLORS". The start screen is just effing hideous. Big ass tiles, and a whole 16 colors to choose from. WTF. Some of us don't want our OSs to look so effing cheesy. (our phones as well). Metro is effing ugly.

maybe some of us do more than look at the start page.. and maybe some of us have no problems with metro apps now that their designers are starting to get a feel for it.

We've only scratched the surface and you're already raising the white flag. way to blow it.

Metro is actually beautiful and simple and clean. It's a design standard, not the actual design. It's people who don't know how to design a nice clean, simple UI for apps who give the bad perception of metro. But the majority of users actually like it and don't mind it.

It's funny how most of the people who whine and complain about the start button or metro have poor grammar and spelling and talk l!kE Di$!

Vasya_Vodochkin said,

I WANTH MAH STAHT MENU BACKH!!!!!!

Well Metro is not just the Start screen and while I do not care for the Start Menu I have no problem to say that both the Start screen and Metro apps need a lot of improvements.

spudtrooper said,

maybe some of us do more than look at the start page.. and maybe some of us have no problems with metro apps now that their designers are starting to get a feel for it.

We've only scratched the surface and you're already raising the white flag. way to blow it.

I don't care if I have to look at it for 2 minutes or 2 days, it is so mind numbingly hideous that even 2 seconds is too long. On top of that they stripped Aero Glass for no good reason -- and I hate the "flat, single color, no drop shadow" look. It is effing brain shattering bad.

j2006 said,
Metro is actually beautiful and simple and clean. It's a design standard, not the actual design. It's people who don't know how to design a nice clean, simple UI for apps who give the bad perception of metro. But the majority of users actually like it and don't mind it.

It's funny how most of the people who whine and complain about the start button or metro have poor grammar and spelling and talk l!kE Di$!

People opinions about Metro greatly differ... Some, like you, find it beautiful, other hate it completely and others fall between these two extreme. Personally I think that it has potential and will evolve very differently from what It is right now.

Hokgiarto Saliem said,
Please Microsoft if you read this, fix the Windows grey scale antialiasing font rendering .
Btw why Microsoft afraid to have version x.0?
What do you mean? Every IE release is just a major release, so why would they use something like 10.1?

Hokgiarto Saliem said,

Btw why Microsoft afraid to have version x.0?


If you're referring to the kernel version number, the last time that had a .0 ... well, things broke!

I expect Windows to remain at the NT6.x kernel for a few more revisions yet.

Studio384 said,
What do you mean? Every IE release is just a major release, so why would they use something like 10.1?

Well they did do a IE 5.5. So not all of them have been a major release.

Ooo... so there may only be a year between major IE releases!? That'd make a welcome change from Microsoft's painfully slow update cycle for IE in recent years!

Studio384 said,
Are we suprised? I mean, IE10 was RTM'ed back in august, they are working on IE11 for 6 months right now...

...which will probably mean that IE11 will then eventually become available to Windows 7 users in like... what... 3 years time?(!)

GreatMarkO said,

...which will probably mean that IE11 will then eventually become available to Windows 7 users in like... what... 3 years time?(!)

If Win 7 users cared about the latest and greatest so much they would be using Win 8 already, it almost cost nothing to upgrade as well. Now Win 8 will very likely be getting a significant update for free and IE11 much sooner.

GreatMarkO said,

...which will probably mean that IE11 will then eventually become available to Windows 7 users in like... what... 3 years time?(!)

Ugh, the mainstream support for Windows 7 ends end 2014, in that time IE12 will be available to, what means that it's also for Windows 7 (if development goes as fast as it looks like).

1Pixel said,

If Win 7 users cared about the latest and greatest so much they would be using Win 8 already, it almost cost nothing to upgrade as well. Now Win 8 will very likely be getting a significant update for free and IE11 much sooner.

There are a lot of reasons to upgrade, but IE isn't one of them. All competing browsers are free to obtain and update.

LogicalApex said,

There are a lot of reasons to upgrade, but IE isn't one of them. All competing browsers are free to obtain and update.


IE is one of the reasons to update. I mean there are a bunch of other reasons too, but IE is ALSO a reason to upgrade.

I mean, if someone asks me why upgrade to W8 I would have to mention IE10.

Studio384 said,
Are we suprised? I mean, IE10 was RTM'ed back in august, they are working on IE11 for 6 months right now...
and IE 10 still isn't out for windows 7

_Alexander said,

IE is one of the reasons to update. I mean there are a bunch of other reasons too, but IE is ALSO a reason to upgrade.

I mean, if someone asks me why upgrade to W8 I would have to mention IE10.

Microsoft's backwards policy of tying IE to Windows releases is a major reason I left IE behind. It is really backwards and harms the community at large. Outdated versions of IE linger on as users rightly don't consider a browser worthy of upgrading their OS for.

The delay of IE10 on Windows 7 also hurts IE10 users. Sites aren't interested in targeting IE10 when it is used by so few (as Windows 7 users still out number Windows 8 users).

IE should be like Firefox and Chrome. Something you can go to MS's site and download the latest version of. Like it was in the days before IE9.

LogicalApex said,

Microsoft's backwards policy of tying IE to Windows releases is a major reason I left IE behind. It is really backwards and harms the community at large. Outdated versions of IE linger on as users rightly don't consider a browser worthy of upgrading their OS for.

The delay of IE10 on Windows 7 also hurts IE10 users. Sites aren't interested in targeting IE10 when it is used by so few (as Windows 7 users still out number Windows 8 users).

IE should be like Firefox and Chrome. Something you can go to MS's site and download the latest version of. Like it was in the days before IE9.


"Lets Support XP" thinking

I thought it was weird when new sites reported that Windows Blue will be the next version of Windows. A service pack makes more sense.

Anaron said,
I thought it was weird when new sites reported that Windows Blue will be the next version of Windows. A service pack makes more sense.

I think most of the rumors were for more of a feature pack than just a service pack.

GP007 said,

I think most of the rumors were for more of a feature pack than just a service pack.

Ah, I guess I haven't read many stories about Windows Blue then.

Riva said,
I take it Windows is now a SaaS product which is win-win for consumers.


Where is the win for consumers? Software as a Service is more expensive than regularly licensed software.

LogicalApex said,
Where is the win for consumers? Software as a Service is more expensive than regularly licensed software.

Only if you're a consumer that chooses to use an OS written in the year 2001 in 2013.

Their pricing is definitely reasonable in the SaaS offerings for the value required. Hell, all of the people bitching about the price of Office and Windows probably spend more per year on coffee than they do on those products.

LogicalApex said,


Where is the win for consumers? Software as a Service is more expensive than regularly licensed software.


How is it expensive when Microsoft offered an upgrade for £15 (new pc owners) and everyone else for £50?
And why is it a win-win? new features on an annual basis including stability improvements instead of having to wait for another 2 years for vNext.

Riva said,

How is it expensive when Microsoft offered an upgrade for £15 (new pc owners) and everyone else for £50?
And why is it a win-win? new features on an annual basis including stability improvements instead of having to wait for another 2 years for vNext.

Because SaaS requires constant payout from consumers. If a user decides to skip a Windows release under a SaaS setup they'll be forced to pay for it anyway. There is no win in that for consumers...

If Microsoft fails to deliver new versions faster than the renewal cycle then users will be forced to repay for their existing software; again no win for consumers.

SaaS is a win for MS as they'll be able to extract a continual monetary stream out of their userbase, but we're not talking about a win for MS alone here are we?

LogicalApex said,

Because SaaS requires constant payout from consumers. If a user decides to skip a Windows release under a SaaS setup they'll be forced to pay for it anyway. There is no win in that for consumers...

If Microsoft fails to deliver new versions faster than the renewal cycle then users will be forced to repay for their existing software; again no win for consumers.

SaaS is a win for MS as they'll be able to extract a continual monetary stream out of their userbase, but we're not talking about a win for MS alone here are we?


I don't know if you always pirated your windows, but I haven't and it always costs around £260 retail until the Vista OEM editions came out for £160. Windows 8 was £60 so if Microsoft decide to do another 2 releases for £40 or even £60 I am glad.

LogicalApex said,
forced
Can we get something straight here folks? 'Forced' and 'required' are two different things. Microsoft would require that you pay your monthly fee to continue to use their product. They cannot and do not 'force' you do anything. You choose to follow their requirements. You can easily use OSX/Linux and iWork/LibreOffice. You just won't get the same productivity.

;tldr; Force = Compel someone to do something regardless of their will; Require = A condition of doing something of your own free will.

MrHumpty said,
Can we get something straight here folks? 'Forced' and 'required' are two different things. Microsoft would require that you pay your monthly fee to continue to use their product. They cannot and do not 'force' you do anything. You choose to follow their requirements. You can easily use OSX/Linux and iWork/LibreOffice. You just won't get the same productivity.

;tldr; Force = Compel someone to do something regardless of their will; Require = A condition of doing something of your own free will.

I understand the definition of the word force and I wasn't using it incorrectly and it was my intent to use that word directly.

Everyone can't use OS X, Linux, BSD, or whatever else you want to plug into this statement. Microsoft's Desktop OS is a monopoly in the PC space (as declared by the US DOJ and confirmed in a court of law). As a result, a user isn't guaranteed to be able to chose something else.

"Choice" when it comes to products only exists where there is pure competition. Pure competition only exists when the user can substitute any of the competing products without any additional work needed. For instance, deck screws. You can buy a deck screw from any manufacturer and use them interchangeably. Allowing the user to chose the best option for them.

There are huge switching costs that are inherent in switching OSes. You may have to repurchase a vast majority of your software. You may lose access to a vast majority of your software library. The list goes on. As a result, MS is in a position to force users.

torrentthief said,
ONLY if it allows us to optionally restore the start menu without having to use a 3rd party application.

*facepalm* You already know that's not happening, so why continue to complain about it?

You're knocking the next iteration of Windows without having seen what Metro will do or trying it.

Edited by Dot Matrix, Feb 23 2013, 5:35pm :

torrentthief said,
ONLY if it allows us to optionally restore the start menu without having to use a 3rd party application.
These people are really getting tiring. Move on already!

torrentthief said,
ONLY if it allows us to optionally restore the start menu without having to use a 3rd party application.

Are you kidding with this?? I mean, still?? People this much against change really need to learn how to move on...

M_Lyons10 said,

Are you kidding with this?? I mean, still?? People this much against change really need to learn how to move on...

The best lols are when they 'threaten' to switch to another OS......without a start menu.

nitins60 said,
Good things are happening at MS. This is what we needed.

It's amazing, Microsoft working on an update for their operating system. Completely blown away here.

Robert.E.Wade said
Anyone who still needs a Start button is just too stupid to have a computer. Get an chisel and stone, you feebs.
Exactly what I'm thinking. I feel like people these days are getting dumber and dumber.

It's not that people can't use the Start Screen. It's that they're either not willing to try & learn how to use it, or they just think it sucks without even trying it..

torrentthief said
ONLY if it allows us to optionally restore the start menu without having to use a 3rd party application.
Is it really that hard to take 10 minutes of your time to learn how to use the Start Screen? We've had the Start Menu for almost 18 years now, it's time to move on...

While we're at it, why don't they just give us the option to use the original Program Manager or even the MS-DOS executive.. /s